JChallenging and Enforcing Arbitrators Award in Court

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 serif;}{
\f4 georgia;}{
\f5 sans-serif;}{
\f6 Courier New;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj
{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid-
1483113999\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace0\levelindent200{\l
eveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-2042489089}
eveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid1553176556}
{\list\listtemplateid1527875674\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspa
ce0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-
1057263609}
648378190\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace0\levelindent200{\le
veltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-2071667202}
ce0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}
{\listname ;}\listid142170834}
1197783096}
{\list\listtemplateid455974595\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspac
e0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}
veltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid54146845}
e0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-
1046464647}
898240839}
701908905}
1850844047}
63628676\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace0\levelindent200{\lev
eltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid-335081958}
156106443}
1030971014}
726801272}
1897438602}
1299292130}
51924436\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace0\levelindent200{\lev
eltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}{\listname ;}\listid465729829}
1303354251}
{\list\listtemplateid51469593\listsimple{\listlevel\leveljc\levelfollow0\levelspace
0\levelindent200{\leveltext\'01\u160\'3f}{\levelnumbers}}
715366083}
1291659112}
1469771284}
717733836}
1019977219}
1905877968}
212121243}
633999125}
659867016}
380642320}
473704939}
1192956979}
}
{\*\listoverridetable
{\*\listoverride{\listid-2042489089\listoverridecount0\ls1}}
{\*\listoverride{\listid1553176556\listoverridecount0\ls2}}
}
\paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1800 \margb1080 \margl1080 \margr1080
\headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrl \clbrdrr \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
clay, jerome
}
}
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
11/8/2016
}
}
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qc \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
For Educational Use Only
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qc \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
J.Challenging and Enforcing Arbitrator\rquote s Award in Court, Cal. Prac. Guide
Alt. Disp....
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql
\clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445f
ffffff8a969f6913ff68931fff9f5f69241f5852af68d38fcddc4f58326fac294f8a868fac193fcdabe
fab985fcdfc7fef5eef58022f8a35efef6effde5d2fac092fffaf6f9ac6ffffcfafde8d7fef7f1f9b27
9f6862cf8aa6af79e56f79c53f58327fef1e7fde3cefeeee2f9b076f79a4efef8f4f58123f58224f9ae
72feefe4f58021f9ae71fac295fffaf7fcdabffef7f2f9af73f9b177f8ac6ef9b47cf8a15bf6872ef79
648fef5edf9b278fcd9bdf9b782f9b57efbc89ffde3cffffefdf6872df8aa6bfcd6b8fac59af9b781fa
bc8bfffbf8fac091fac396fbceaaf8a461f68e39f6882ffabe8dfabf8ff9b884f79c52fdeadbfeede0f
68c36f89f58fcdcc3fde0c9fef0e5fef3eaf68f3cfbcaa2f8a867f9b37afaba87f68b35fde7d6fabf90
fffcfbfaba86fde7d5f6903efffdfcfef4ecf68f3bfde1cafcdfc6fbd1affbcea9fcd6b7f68a33f7944
4fbcba5f58429fcdec6f9af74f8a25df58428f7a461fef4edfdede0fde6d4fde7d4f9b680fbc69cfbc8
a0f9b37bfac9a1f69240f79d54fcd4b4f9b883f68e3afef8f3fdebddfde2cbf7984cf8a35ff6882efef
3ebf9bd8cfcd4b5feecdef8a562fde6d3fef9f4fcdbc1f9bc8afcd8bcf8ab6dfef8f2fcd7b9fffbf7fe
efe3f79546f8aa69f79f57fde1cbfcd3b3fcd2b1f8a25cfcd3b2fde2ccfac599fac397f9b379fcd8bbf
bd2b0fef2e9fcd5b6fac79ef8a664f8a460f68a32fac090fffbf9fef2e8f8ab6cfde4d0f7994df6903d
f79749fffefcf79e55f8a766f8a059f68830f7974afde2cdfbcca6fabd8cf57f2000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000007df8d2030000000174524e530040e6d86600000009
7048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002814944415478da636680023eb5570ce186e2a55b85b
5f54d94595f337247083ee592d448fdcda26527d272e93da364d58d865d10c58b1f7a9d67708e7cf976
82a87fe1ca5469f97b50539860c62dfb67c1f029a9f211c3d7ae33bff2ffb03046ae53e3dac4106b76e
2b9c17235a9598c8caa5f179f80a80d94eeb9c9c0a0ef22c1a09de8f891e168e14d98292c3046e2ca55
271e247d9cc1a0cae067ca607583618efd56be2f0f7318b4b215661d7efa9289e1d07b67a8e3f8e3384
d84dfaa30c830f4de7f64c0f09841fe11ba71210c9f18945efc3fc3d0d5744389618d0483e77cb587bb
27763ebb96cdc0f0e6a6fb1f0686fb309b972c5d9dea9ad4fd428381e7bbc84986bf0cd761a630c318f
7150ffeee3fd478f6cb0ce15bd767fff9f1e3b2d0e36a4ff1d97a1f8006b1fe7af31d6875d4ca9f20a5
39792fdb7f9dbffd4131e6c16f3981f7e12f9f5dfcc7800e84cc6dd80c380a7c657818fa39f33475c49
73130f0aa30ed2be9616010601602aae0dac70f56e9b24f3fa84f41912189792fe7c234366b5646064c
e0acee309ba18c9d992d8c41649f3b4c542c67df0e84714ae0f099b98f8d4d7b5f36833e27f36603860
033f57c060ccf3230be9d767ff7d115e98bdf7ee60a65c8bd2eae7fb7dc7ff757a5b65d1f193836f01d
077a396aaec04f95b7ba519fde581d7ffef3da1fdbe9c18f199ecd5977e90ba671c59c6699bf187e5aa
c7ac7b09cbd63d64b9f131cbb2523c3b8eec51d60889bc37803e8c650f725ffdeb1ff09c9397de1d7c7
4ec9dd550276eb1916720b3c7a8969dcbee0e9124f182c7a7ffd62f8bfebdb4b869b759f0a369e8dde9
b92cbc070d1e21d3029fcbb76f0298383ef8997a0e427be85e3eae7d99f6f3004aff2ef861b0200a155
f504c5b3927b0000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb7f2f8_Target}{\*\bkmkend
I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb7f2f8_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f4 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Cal. Prac. Guide Alt. Disp. Res. Ch. 5-J
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
California Practice Guide--Alternative Dispute Resolution
\par
}
}
{\f4 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Database updated November 2015
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Judge H. Warren Knight (Ret.), Richard Chernick, Susan W. Haldeman and Judge
William L. Bettinelli (Ret.)
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Chapter 5. Contractual
}
{\f2 \b1 \chcbpat22 \fs20 \cf23 \i0
Arbitration
}
}
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I027cfd704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I027cfd704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
\par
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li100 \f4 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf23 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f4 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf23 \qc \i0
}
{\li100 \f4 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf23 \qc \i0
J. Challenging and Enforcing
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
Award in Court
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\pard \zwbo {\fs30 \up4 \f2 \cf1 \ulth
}\zwbo
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls1
\pnindent200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20
\cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls1 {\pntext }
{\pard }\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0
\ls2 \pnindent700 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb \u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li700 \f2 \qj \b1
\ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls2 {\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I029010404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
1. [5:444] Limited
}
Judicial
}
}
}
}
Review
}
}
}
\u8212\'3fIn General
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}{\fi-360 \li {\*\pn \pnlvlblt \ilvl0 \ls3 \pnindent1200 \pnf1 {\f2 \pntxtb
\u160\'3f}}{\listtext \li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 \u160\'3f\tab }\ls3
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02a6f3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a. [5:445] Rationale for limited review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02adaa604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
b. [5:445.1] No due process right to review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02b720404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:445.2] Includes punitive damage awards
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02c132604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:445.3] Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02c921a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
c. [5:446] Effect
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02cb92a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:447] Sufficiency of evidence immaterial
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02d026804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:448] Validity of reasoning immaterial
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02d72b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:448.1] Interpretation of contract
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02df1aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:448.2] \u8220\'3fPlausible\u8221\'3f interpretation precludes review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I02e61f804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:448.3] Collective bargaining agreements
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0315e2104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
d. [5:449] Errors of law
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
not reviewable
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I031daa404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:450] Rationale
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(2) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:451] \u8220\'3fError on face of award\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fsubstantial
injustice\u8221\'3f irrelevant
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I038aeb004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:452] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:453] Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I03b94e004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
e. [5:456] Exception\u8212\'3fprotecting statutory rights
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I03e89b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
f. [5:456.5] Effect of choice of law provision on award upholding covenant not to
compete
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I03ee40b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
g. [5:456.6] Expanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award by agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I03f62ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:456.8] Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by agreement unenforceable under FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I042d93a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:456.10] Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded appellate review by stipulation to
\u8220\'3fprivate judge\u8221\'3f process
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I043f1fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
h. [5:456.12] Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded review under provider rules
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
i. [5:456.12a] Compare\u8212\'3femployment agreement providing for expanded review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I044fc1a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
j. [5:457] Compare\u8212\'3fbroader review under federal standards?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0474d5d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:458] Rationale
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I047aa2304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:459] What constitutes \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of law\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(a) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04a052a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:459.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
CAUTION
}
}
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR MISUSE OF DOCTRINE
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04c31ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:459.11] Compare\u8212\'3fmanifest disregard of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
evidence
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04ca48d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:460] Effect of nonreasoned award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:460.1] Effect of \u8220\'3farbitrary and capricious\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fcompletely irrational\u8221\'3f awards
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04e23da04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(6) [5:461] Expanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by agreement unenforceable under FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04e9dec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:461.1] Agreement to bypass trial court review for direct appellate review
unenforceable under FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04f661e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:461.5] Compare\u8212\'3fbroader review authorized by state statute or common
law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04fa59804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:461.6] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of awards for \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of law\u8221\'3f?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I04ff3b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(d) [5:461.7] Compare\u8212\'3fCalifornia law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
k. [5:462] Limitation on
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by contract?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I584e1cd0638211e49988e100be0fe" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:462.1] Compare\u8212\'3fCalifornia law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
2. [5:463] Motion to Vacate or Correct
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
Award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0535dbe04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a. [5:463.1] Statutory grounds exclusive
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0541e9d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:463.2] Caution\u8212\'3fwaiver risk
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0555bff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
b. [5:464] Grounds to vacate award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I056d66a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:465] \u8220\'3fExceeding
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power\u8221\'3f as ground to vacate award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05a6c6204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:467] Lack of subject matter jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05af03804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:468] Illegal contract
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05b62f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:469]
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
findings not determinative
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05bdd0904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:470] Compare\u8212\'3fpartial illegality
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05d43ec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:472] Public policy
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I05dc7c204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:472.1] Test
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I060253a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(d) [5:472.5] Right to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
waived
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0609f4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(e) [5:473] Decision beyond issues submitted
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
1) [5:473.1] Issues submitted beyond
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
2) [5:473.2] Deference to
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
interpretation
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
3) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0652bd904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
4) [5:475.5] Compare\u8212\'3frole of lawsuit pleadings
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(f) [5:476]
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to comply with
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I065f8ed04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
2) [5:477.3] Waiver of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to comply
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06ae4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(g) [5:477.4]
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
selection process not in compliance with parties\rquote agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06b54ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(h) [5:477.5]
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
\u8220\'3farbitrary remaking\u8221\'3f of contract?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06c2bd704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:477.6] Compare\u8212\'3fambiguous provisions
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06cc0c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:477.10] Compare\u8212\'3feffect of adhesion contract
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(i) [5:477.15] Procedural restriction\u8212\'3flimiting company to one
representative at
}
arbitration
}
}
}
hearing
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06da64204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(j) [5:478] Unauthorized remedy
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06df1f104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:478.1] Remedies available only in court
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06eed6804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:478.2] Remedies bearing no \u8220\'3frational relationship\u8221\'3f to
contract breach
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06f231e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a) [5:478.3] \u8220\'3fRational relationship\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I06f7b0204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
b) [5:478.4] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal \u8220\'3fessence\u8221\'3f test
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
3) [5:478.5] Compare\u8212\'3fwhere \u8220\'3frational relationship\u8221\'3f
exists
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
4) [5:478.15] Compare\u8212\'3fremedies excluded by agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I073ad3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(k) [5:479] Remedy not authorized by law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:480] \u8220\'3fFraud, corruption or other undue means\u8221\'3f as ground to
vacate award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:481] By
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
or by party
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:482] Extrinsic vs. intrinsic fraud
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:485] Compare\u8212\'3ffraud in inducement of agreement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(d) [5:485.1] \u8220\'3fCorruption\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07845fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(e) [5:486] \u8220\'3fUndue means\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:487]
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to disclose required matters
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:487.1] Failure to disclose other matters
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07b66c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:487.1a] Compare\u8212\'3funder FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07c0f3904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:487.1b] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07cefd504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:487.1g] Ethical standards
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07d5db204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:487.2] Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
vs. nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
1) [5:487.2a] Compare\u8212\'3fformer law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07ef56904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:487.3] Compare\u8212\'3finsurance appraisal proceedings
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I07f6f7b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a) [5:487.4] Higher standard than for
}
arbitrators
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
3) [5:487.10] Compare\u8212\'3fprovider rules
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
4) [5:487.11] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(d) [5:487.15] Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
under CAA vs.
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
under MFAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I082a8ad04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:488] Neutral
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to honor demand for disqualification
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:489] Actual bias
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I083efd304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:490] Burden on party challenging award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I084342f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:491]
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
testimony admissible
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I084bce704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(6) [5:492] \u8220\'3fEvident partiality\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I084f29d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:493] \u8220\'3fReasonable impression of partiality\u8221\'3f test
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08540bd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:494] Actual bias
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I085a9b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:495] Nondisclosure
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I085fcba04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a) [5:495.1] Duty to investigate
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
b) [5:495.2] No duty to investigate
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I086ebfc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
c) [5:495.3] Effect of party\rquote s failure to object before award issues?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li3200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
d) [5:495.4] Compare\u8212\'3fwhere facts known to
}
arbitrator
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:495.8] Compare\u8212\'3fnonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
conduct
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08a6bfb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:495.11] Effect of provider rules
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08aab7504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:495.12] Compare\u8212\'3fAAA/ABA Code of Ethics
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(7) [5:498] Failure to determine \u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f issues
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08bd06d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:499] Which issues \u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08c67cb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:500] Presumption that all issues decided
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08cc22004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:501] Monetary award as determinative
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(d) [5:501.1] Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fmake-whole\u8221\'3f awards
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08e32c704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(8) [5:502] Refusal to grant continuance or hear evidence
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08ec54304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:503] Substantial prejudice
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I08fa0fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I091f4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(9) [5:503.4] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
rulings preventing discovery
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(10) [5:503.4a] Prejudicial misconduct/misbehavior
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I099e3f104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(11) [5:503.5] Award not \u8220\'3fmutual, final and definite\u8221\'3f as ground
for vacating
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09a20fa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:503.6] \u8220\'3fFinal\u8221\'3f defined
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09ae44a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:503.7] \u8220\'3fMutual\u8221\'3f defined
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09b326a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:503.8] \u8220\'3fDefinite\u8221\'3f defined
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09bac7c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
c. [5:504] Grounds to correct award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09c3ef804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:505] \u8220\'3fExceeding
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers\u8221\'3f as ground for correction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I09fc8bb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:505.10] Limitation\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fnot affecting merits\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a0b7fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:505.15] Limitation\u8212\'3fcourt prohibited from substituting its
}
judgment
}
}
}
for
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
in determining scope of powers
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a120f804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:505.16] Limitation\u8212\'3f costs or interest not requested from
}
arbitrators
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
d. [5:506] Time limit
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:507] Earlier if raised in response to petition to confirm
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a2e71204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:507.1] Effect of response to untimely petition to confirm award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:508] Tolling
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a374ac04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:508.1] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal law
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a3ec4d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:509] Extended by application to
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to correct award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:510] Motion for relief from default ()?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:510.1] View that relief available
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a4fb4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:510.2] Contra view
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a57f2204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(c) [5:510.3] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(6) [5:510.4] Motion for relief under court\rquote s equitable power
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a6a41a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(7) [5:510.5] Effect of raising grounds to vacate or correct award for first time
on appeal
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a7c1bf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(8) [5:512] Compare\u8212\'3fjurisdictional challenges still available
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a825d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(9) [5:512.1] Effect of minor\rquote s incapacity to contract
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a88ed304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
e. Procedural matters
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a89fea04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:513] Subject matter jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a8e44604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:513.1] \u8220\'3fLimited civil cases\u8221\'3f
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:514] Venue
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0a9a79604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:514.1] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal venue
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0aa74aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:515] Petition
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ab4b8204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:516] Supporting proof
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ab68ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:517] Admissibility of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
declaration
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ad056704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
2) [5:518.6] Admissibility of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
deposition
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ae27ee04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
3) [5:518.10] Compare\u8212\'3fremand for clarification
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0aeae3504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:519] Incorporation by reference
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0af320b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:521] Response
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0af766704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:522] Notice requirements
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0aff7cc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(6) [5:523] Rehearing
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(7) [5:523.1] Sanctions for improper petitions to vacate
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b0fa9604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
f. [5:524] Appellate review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b12b6a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:525] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
vacating
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
interim
}
}
ruling
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b1b90404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:526] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
dismissing
}
}
petition
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:526.1] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
denying
}
}
petition on
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
substantive
}
}
grounds
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b2d91a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:526.2] Standard of review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:526.5] Compare\u8212\'3fappellate review under FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b324c904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:526.6] Application
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:526.7] Standard of review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b4622b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
3. [5:527] Petition to Confirm Award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
a. [5:527.1] Compare\u8212\'3fconfirmation of nonbinding MFAA fee
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b59aab04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
b. [5:528] Confirmation mandatory absent grounds for challenge
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b5fc5304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:528.1] Effect of court\rquote s failure to correct or vacate award, or
dismiss petition
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b662dd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:529] Payment no bar to confirmation
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b6cbd804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:529.5] Satisfaction of
}
judgment
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
c. [5:530] Awards made outside California
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:531] Foreign
}
arbitrations
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
d. [5:532] Time limits
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b9490d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
e. [5:534] Procedural matters
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0b974ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:535] Personal jurisdiction
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ba30fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:535.5] Venue
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ba61d004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:535.6] Compare\u8212\'3ffederal venue
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ba8dc204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
1) [5:535.6a] Permissive only
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bba8f604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
f. [5:536] Opposing motions; deadlines
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bd25d204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
g. [5:537] Statement of decision
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bd8c5c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:537.1] Effect of failure to request statement of decision
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bde92204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
h. [5:538]
}
Judgment
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0be2b0d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:539] Costs
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0be919704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:539.1] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding costs
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bf1a4f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:540] Interest
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0bf723304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:540.1] Amending
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor\rquote s alter ego
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c00e7304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:540.2] Amending
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add undisputed sum that was part of award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c0972b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:540.6]
}
Judgment
}
}
}
confirming appraisal award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c15cec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
i. [5:541] Appellate review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c1d96f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:541.1] Finality requirement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c23ff904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:541.5] Compare\u8212\'3fappellate review under FAA
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I5e6408f0638211e49988e100be0fe" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:541.10] Standard of review
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c2cd9304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
4. [5:542] Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c33de104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a. [5:543] Res judicata
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c489e904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:544] Includes claims that could have been raised
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:545] Award need not be confirmed
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c5a03b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:545.5] Decided by
}
arbitrator
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c61f2f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
b. [5:546] Collateral estoppel
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c685b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:546.1] No collateral estoppel effect as to third parties
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c6e27f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:546.1a] Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of third parties in
}
arbitration
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
(b) [5:546.1b] Effect of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
prior ruling denying disqualification of counsel
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c7ea2b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:546.2] Effect of adverse
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award on employee\rquote s subsequent lawsuit involving statutory claims
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c97d0004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:546.4] Compare\u8212\'3feffect of prior labor
}
arbitration
}
}
}
decisions on subsequent
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0c9e38a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(4) [5:547] Effect of nonreasoned award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cadf0104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(5) [5:549] Effect of settlement
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cb67b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(6) [5:550.1] Compare\u8212\'3funinsured motorist
}
arbitrations
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cbd59604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(7) [5:550.2] Compare\u8212\'3flabor union
}
arbitrations
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cc0dbd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:550.3] Limitation\u8212\'3fstatutory discrimination claims
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ccdd4204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
c. [5:550.5] Limitation in federal cases
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cd304404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:550.6] Bankruptcy issues
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cdb68b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(2) [5:550.7] Civil rights violations ()
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ce21f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(3) [5:550.8] Collateral estoppel effect in favor of nonparties under FAA?
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li2200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0ce68c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(a) [5:550.8a] Comment
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cf0c5704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
d. [5:550.10] Compare\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cumis
}
}
counsel fee
}
arbitrations
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cf818704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
e. [5:550.11] Compare\u8212\'3fno malicious prosecution based on
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0cfb73d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
(1) [5:550.12] Compare\u8212\'3fjudicial
}
arbitration
}
}
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li700 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\fldrslt
5. [5:550.20] Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Court
}
Judgment
}
}
}
in
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Proceeding
}}}
\par {\pntext }
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_anchor_I0d0a40e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297" }
{\fldrslt
a. [5:550.21] Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel
}}}
\par {\pntext }
}
}{\pntext }
}{\pntext }
}
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I027e35f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I027e35f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:443_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:443_1}
}
[5:443] An
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award is not directly enforceable. Until confirmed or vacated by court
proceedings, the award has no more force or effect than a contract in writing
between the parties to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. [
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS1287.6&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
ddb7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.6
}}}
; see
}
findType=Y&serNum=2015870529&pubNum=0007047&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
cddb7f2f8&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_7047_564&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cbl
t1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_7047_564" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Loeb v. Record
}
}
(2008) 162 CA4th 431, 449, 75 CR3d 551, 564
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, after an award has been made, one party or the other usually initiates court
proceedings: The prevailing party may petition the court to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
confirm
}
}
the award and enter
}
judgment
}
}
}
thereon (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
findType=Y&serNum=0427325967&pubNum=106764&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
ddb7f2f8&refType=TS&docFamilyGuid=Id61d7e27c26511e4852ff42c24d8d280&fi=co_pp_sp_106
764_5%3a527&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIt
em&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:527" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:527
}}}
}
); or the losing party may petition to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
modify
}
}
or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacate
}
}
the award entirely (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:463
}}}
}
). [
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS1285&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
b7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
CCP \u167\'3f 1285
}}}
; see
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=9USCAS10&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb
7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docum
entItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 10
}}}
,
}
11
}}}
; and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luster v. Collins
}
}
(1993) 15 CA4th 1338, 1344, 19 CR2d 215, 218
}}}
; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Landis v. Pinkertons, Inc.
}
}
(2004) 122 CA4th 985, 993, 18 CR3d 890, 895
}}}
\u8212\'3fplaintiff\rquote s ex parte motion (\u8220\'3fprocedural
impropriety\u8221\'3f) was not prejudicial]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
, the court
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
must
}
}
confirm, correct or vacate the award or dismiss the petition. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto
}
}
(2009) 176 CA4th 1, 9, 97 CR3d 329, 336
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
\u167\'3f 1286
}}}
is mandatory in this respect]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I029010404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I029010404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1. [5:444]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limited
}
Judicial
}
}
}
}
Review
}
}
}
\u8212\'3fIn General:
}
}
Statutes set forth specific grounds upon which an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award may be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacated
}
}
(
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:464 ff.
}}}
}
) or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
corrected
}
}
(
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.6
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:504 ff.
}}}
}
). Except on these grounds,
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
immune
}
}
from
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
in proceedings to challenge or enforce the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 12-13, 10 CR2d 183, 189
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Zazueta v. County of San Benito
}
}
(1995) 38 CA4th 106, 110, 44 CR2d 678, 680
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This rule is held to apply to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all
}
}
private, contractual
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
, including those compelled by statute (e.g., uninsured motorist
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Porter v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.
}
}
(1996) 43 CA4th 1282, 1288-1289, 51 CR2d 338, 342
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see discussion at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a475.2&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Document
Item&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:475.2" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:475.2
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Except as discussed below, only
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
final
}
}
awards and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
partial final
}
}
awards are subject to review (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:422.5
}}}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But interim awards may be subject to immediate
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
under the parties\rquote express agreement or provider rules (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a422.10&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:422.10" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:422.10
}}}
}
), under the FAA (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:422.11
}}}
}
) or under California law when necessary to provide an effective remedy consistent
with the parties\rquote agreement and selected rules (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:422.12
}}}
}
)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Also, when a basis to disqualify an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
is revealed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
after
}
}
issuance of an interim award, a court may review the award on a petition to vacate
based on the nondisclosure. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Advantage Med. Services, LLC v. Hoffman
}
}
(2008) 160 CA4th 806, 811-813, 816-817, 72 CR3d 935, 938-939, 942-943
}}}
\u8212\'3freview of interim award after party learned of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
nondisclosure of relationship that required disclosure and AAA\rquote s denial of
party\rquote s petition to disqualify
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment: Advantage Med. Services
}
}
did not discuss its jurisdiction to entertain a petition to vacate an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
interim
}
}
award. (The court found that the petition to disqualify the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was moot once the interim award issued.The sole remedy for nondisclosure was to
seek vacatur of the award.) [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Advantage Med. Services, LLC v. Hoffman
}
}
, supra, 160 CA4th at 821, 72 CR3d at 945
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed further at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ddb7f2f8&refType=TS&docFamilyGuid=Id61da537c26511e4852ff42c24d8d280&fi=co_pp_sp_106
764_7%3a81.1&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentI
tem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_7:81.1" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f7:81.1
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02a6f3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02a6f3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a. [5:445]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rationale for limited review:
}
}
Limiting grounds for
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
effectuates the parties\rquote agreement that the award be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
final
}
}
. It also reflects that
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
ordinarily
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
need not follow the law
}
}
and may base their decisions on \u8220\'3fbroad principles of justice and
equity\u8221\'3f \u8230\'3f \u8220\'3fpaths neither marked nor traceable by
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 3 C4th at 11, 10 CR2d at 187-188
}}}
;
}
cddb7f2f8&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_227_479&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt
1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_227_479" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nogueiro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
}
}
(1988) 203 CA3d 1192, 1195, 250 CR 478, 479
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02adaa604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02adaa604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:445_1_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:445_1_1}
}
b. [5:445.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No due process right to review:
}
}
A private
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
constitute
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
state action
}
}
; thus, there is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no due process
}
}
right to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the award: \u8220\'3f(A)n
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is not a product of public law or state proceedings, but rather is a private
arrangement, governed by rules of the parties\rquote own making or selection
\u8230\'3f (and) is not constrained by due process.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rifkind & Sterling, Inc. v. Rifkind
}
}
(1994) 28 CA4th 1282, 1292, 33 CR2d 828, 834
}}}
(parentheses added); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bosack v. Soward
}
}
(9th Cir. 2009) 586 F3d 1096, 1105
}}}
(en banc)]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The limited state involvement of converting the award into a
}
judgment
}
}
}
does not \u8220\'3fengender the same due process incidents required with respect
to an award originally assessed and imposed by a court.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Rifkind & Sterling, Inc. v. Rifkind
}
}
, supra]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02b720404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02b720404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:445.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Includes punitive damage awards:
}
}
Nor are punitive damage awards in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
subject to heightened scrutiny: \u8220\'3fA party cannot agree to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, and then assert that an award made pursuant to that agreement \u8230\'3f denies
due process because it is not sufficiently reliable.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Barnes v. Logan
}
}
(9th Cir. 1997) 122 F3d 820, 824
}}}
(internal quotes omitted)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
Even though the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Due Process Clause
}
}
provides
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no
}
}
ground for review of a punitive damage award, it is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arguable
}
}
that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
manifest disregard of the law
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:459 ff.
}}}
}
) is a ground in those federal courts that recognize the principle. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sawtelle v. Waddell & Reed, Inc.
}
}
(2003) 754 NYS2d 264, 269-270, 276
}}}
\u8212\'3f$25 million punitive award rendered in NASD proceeding vacated as grossly
excessive and irrational]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02c132604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02c132604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:445.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application:
}
}
The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
awarded more than $2.5 million punitive damages in an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
in which the clause (by reference to AAA rules that were thereby deemed
incorporated in the clause) limited the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers to remedies a court could award. Although a court may award punitive
damages, there are constitutional (due process) limits on the amount. To the extent
the amount of the punitive damages award would be subject to such attack, that goes
to the legal correctness of the award, not the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shahinian v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
}
}
(2011) 194 CA4th 987, 1006-1008, 124 CR3d 128, 142-144
}}}
(noting continuing applicability of principle articulated in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Rifkind
}
}
, supra); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mave Enterprises, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn.
}
}
(2013) 219 CA4th 1408, 1437-1441, 162 CR3d 671, 694-697
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02c921a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02c921a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
c. [5:446]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect:
}
}
The merits of the controversy are generally not reviewable by the court when a
petition to confirm or vacate is presented. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 3 C4th at 11, 10 CR2d at 188
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02cb92a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02cb92a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:447]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Sufficiency of evidence immaterial:
}
}
Thus, courts will not review the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award.
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morris v. Zuckerman
}
}
(1968) 69 C2d 686, 691, 72 CR 880, 883
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02d026804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02d026804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:448]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Validity of reasoning immaterial:
}
}
Nor will courts pass upon the validity of the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
reasoning. The court simply
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
may not substitute its
}
judgment
}
}
}
}
for that of the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morris v. Zuckerman
}
}
, supra, 69 C2d at 691, 72 CR at 884
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Department of Public Health of City & County of San Francisco v. Service Employees
Int\rquote l Union, Local 790
}
}
(1989) 215 CA3d 429, 433, 263 CR 711, 714, fn. 5
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fwe do not see any logic in the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
(decision) \u8230\'3f however \u8230\'3f the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had the power (to so decide)\u8221\'3f (parentheses added)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02d72b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02d72b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:448.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Interpretation of contract:
}
}
Interpretation of the underlying contract is ordinarily a question of law
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
for the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
}
, not the court: \u8220\'3fIt is the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
construction which was bargained for; and so far as the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision concerns construction of the contract,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
the courts have no business overruling him
}
}
because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.
}
}
(1960) 363 US 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1362
}}}
(emphasis added);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70
of Alameda County
}
}
(1978) 83 CA3d 430, 438, 147 CR 835, 839
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Long John Silver\rquote s Restaurants, Inc. v. Cole
}
}
(4th Cir. 2008) 514 F3d 345, 353
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3f
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision in the Class Award to certify an \u8216\'3fopt-out\u8217\'3f class was
simply a matter of contract interpretation, and thus well within his
authority\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02df1aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02df1aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:448.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fPlausible\u8221\'3f interpretation precludes review:
}
}
Where the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award, on its face, \u8220\'3frepresents a plausible interpretation of the
contract in the context of the parties\rquote conduct, judicial inquiry ceases and
the award must be affirmed.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Screen Actors Guild v. A. Shane Co.
}
}
(1990) 225 CA3d 260, 265, 275 CR 220, 223
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 241 F3d 1177, 1183
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:448.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Collective bargaining agreements:
}
}
A labor
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award is subject to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
on grounds that the award:
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
does not \u8220\'3fdraw its essence\u8221\'3f from the CBA (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:478.4
}}}
}
);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
exceeds the scope of the issues submitted to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
runs counter to public policy; or
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
was procured by fraud. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 266 F3d 979, 986
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 17
}
}
(2000) 531 US 57, 62, 121 S.Ct. 462, 466-467
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02f031a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02f031a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:448_3a_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:448_3a_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:448.3a] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded her power by reforming a collective bargaining memorandum of
understanding based on her conclusion that it did not comport with the
parties\rquote actual agreement. The reformation of the memorandum violated well-
defined public policy and the parties\rquote statutory rights (a violation of the
Dills Act, which requires legislative approval of CBAs). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Department of Personnel Admin. v. California Correctional Peace Officers Ass\rquote
n
}
}
(2007) 152 CA4th 1193, 1200, 1203, 62 CR3d 110, 115, 118
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02f5d6f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02f5d6f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:448.4] The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
must construe and apply the CBA that governed the parties\rquote relationship
rather than dispensing \u8220\'3fhis own notions of industrial justice.\u8221\'3f
The reviewing court, in turn, may not substitute its own view of the facts and the
meaning of the CBA for that determined by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service
}
}
, supra, 241 F3d at 1183
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Major League Baseball Players Ass\rquote n v. Garvey
}
}
(2001) 532 US 504, 510-511, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 1728-1729
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt of appeals erred in substituting its own conclusion for that of
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and remanding matter to have
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
enter award consistent with court of appeals\rquote view, reversing
}
cddb7f2f8&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Garvey v. Roberts
}
}
(9th Cir. 2000) 203 F3d 580
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I02fd78104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I02fd78104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:448.4a] A key question on
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is whether the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
interpreted the contract. \u8220\'3f(M)isinterpretation of contractual language is
within the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 139, AFL-CIO v. J.H. Findorff &
Son, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2004) 393 F3d 742, 745-746
}}}
\u8212\'3fdistrict court erred in applying \u8220\'3fplainmeaning
exception\u8221\'3f to \u8220\'3frule that
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power to decide includes the power to err\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0303e0b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0303e0b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:448.5] The determination of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
that the Screen Actors\rquote Guild waived a provision of the CBA (SAG Rules) in
granting a waiver for a renewal contract between actor and agent is presumed
\u8220\'3fcorrect, rebuttable only by a clear preponderance of the
evidence.\u8221\'3f
}
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Grammer v. Artists Agency
}
}
(9th Cir. 2002) 287 F3d 886, 891
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0309fb304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0309fb304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:448.6]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fFMLA absences:
}
}
On the other hand, an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was allowed to take the Family and Medical Leave Act (
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS2601&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
29 USC \u167\'3f 2601 et seq.
}}}
) into consideration in determining whether an employee\rquote s absences were
\u8220\'3fexcusable\u8221\'3f under the CBA. CBA provisions authorized the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to consider the FMLA. Moreover, the parties
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
agreed
}
}
to allow the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to consider the FMLA. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Butler Mfg. Co. v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC
}
}
(7th Cir. 2003) 336 F3d 629, 632-636
}}}
\u8212\'3fno cause to terminate employee because absences excusable under FMLA
(award enforceable)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0315e2104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0315e2104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
d. [5:449]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Errors of law
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not reviewable
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Generally, errors of law committed by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
, no matter how gross, are not grounds for challenging the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award under California law. (The federal rule is different;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
\u182\'3f5:457
}}}
}
.) [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 11, 10 CR2d 183, 188
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Richey v. AutoNation, Inc.
}
}
(2015) 60 C4th 909, 916, 182 CR3d 644, 648-649
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baize v. Eastridge Cos.
}
}
(2006) 142 CA4th 293, 300-302, 47 CR3d 763, 768-769
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I031daa404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I031daa404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:450]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rationale:
}
}
There are two reasons:
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The parties contracted that the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
right or wrong
}
}
, would be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
conclusive
}
}
; and
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The risk of
}
arbitral
}
}
}
error has been reduced by statutory provisions allowing courts to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacate
}
}
or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
correct
}
}
for \u8220\'3fserious problems with the award itself or with the fairness of the
}
arbitral
}
}
}
process.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 3 C4th at 12, 10 CR2d at 188-189
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
(2) Application
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:450.1] School District unsuccessfully objected to
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
calculation of damages in Teacher\rquote s wrongful termination case: \u8220\'3fTo
the extent that (School District\rquote s) argument is intended to be a challenge
to the method or formula employed by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to calculate (Teacher\rquote s) compensatory damages, we do not address this issue
because it is at most an error of law, not reviewable by the courts.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Paramount Unified School Dist. v. Teachers Ass\rquote n of Paramount
}
}
(1994) 26 CA4th 1371, 1384, 32 CR2d 311, 318
}}}
(parentheses added)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I036f73c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I036f73c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:450.2] Partner unsuccessfully sought vacation of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award because the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
failed to give him the benefit of certain Corporations Code provisions:
\u8220\'3fEven where application of a particular law or body of law is required by
the parties\rquote
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement, an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to apply such a law is not in excess of an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marsch v. Williams
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0374a3e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0374a3e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:450.3] In a dispute over whether an option to purchase land had been
exercised, Optionee unsuccessfully sought review of
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
determination that Optionee had no interest in the property. Optionee improperly
characterized the claimed error of law as an act in excess of jurisdiction. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Harris v. Sandro
}
}
(2002) 96 CA4th 1310, 1313-1314, 117 CR2d 910, 913
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Caution:
}
}
The optionee\rquote s appeal from the trial court\rquote s denial of the petition
to vacate resulted in sanctions under
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS907&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb
CCP \u167\'3f 907
}}}
(frivolous appeal). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Harris v. Sandro
}
}
, supra, 96 CA4th at 1315-1316, 117 CR2d at 914-915
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:455.8
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I037f79504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I037f79504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:450.4] In a wrongful termination action, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
issued an award in favor of the former employee. The parties\rquote agreement
contained a provision requiring that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
apply California law. Employer\rquote s motion to vacate the award on the ground
that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had incorrectly applied California law was denied.The record did not reflect that
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
applied any law other than California law. Therefore, the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision was not reviewable. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baize v. Eastridge Cos.
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:451]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fError on face of award\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fsubstantial
injustice\u8221\'3f irrelevant:
}
}
At common law, courts could set aside
}
arbitral
}
}
}
awards for errors of law \u8220\'3fappearing on the face of the award\u8221\'3f
where enforcement would cause \u8220\'3fsubstantial injustice.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But these are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
among the statutory grounds to vacate or correct an award
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and the statutory grounds are exclusive
}
}
. Thus, \u8220\'3fthe existence of an error of law apparent on the face of the
award that causes substantial injustice does not provide grounds for
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3fdisapproving earlier cases to the contrary]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I038aeb004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I038aeb004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:452]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
In effect, as noted by the dissent in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Moncharsh
}
}
, the policy favoring
}
arbitration
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
outweighs
}
}
the concerns of justice and may require trial courts to endorse substantially
unjust decisions!
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:453]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application:
}
}
Thus, for example, awards have been upheld despite:
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:454] Erroneous application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel;
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:455] Erroneous application of res judicata;
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03991bd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03991bd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:455.1] Consideration of inadmissible evidence;
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I039cc5504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I039cc5504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:455.2] Erroneous denial of attorney fees. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Guleserian
}
}
(1972) 28 CA3d 397, 402, 104 CR 683, 687
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Moore v. First Bank of San Luis Obispo
}
}
(2000) 22 C4th 782, 789, 94 CR2d 603, 608
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:431.3
}}}
}
; and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Moshonov v. Walsh
}
}
(2000) 22 C4th 771, 779, 94 CR2d 597, 601-602
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:431.4
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:455.3 - 5:455.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03aa59e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03aa59e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:455.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Make certain that you have proper grounds
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
filing a petition to vacate an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. The application of the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Moncharsh
}
}
principle of no review for legal error (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:449
}}}
}
) is so well-established, and its exceptions so narrow, that courts are now looking
carefully at petitions to vacate awards as constituting
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
sanctionable
}
}
conduct.
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
For example, in one instance, counsel and the party were sanctioned for appealing
the denial of a petition to vacate the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award challenging (among other things) the power of the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to award attorney fees. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pierotti v. Torian
}
}
(2000) 81 CA4th 17, 32-33, 96 CR2d 553, 563-564
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Harris v. Sandro
}
}
(2002) 96 CA4th 1310, 1315-1316, 117 CR2d 910, 914-915
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:450.3
}}}
}
; and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Evans v. CenterStone Develop. Co.
}
}
(2005) 134 CA4th 151, 167-168, 35 CR3d 745, 757-758
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03b94e004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03b94e004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
e. [5:456]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Exception\u8212\'3fprotecting statutory rights:
}
}
Notwithstanding the broad sweep of the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Moncharsh
}
}
rule, there may be exceptional circumstances justifying
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision; e.g., where granting finality to an award would be inconsistent with a
party\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
statutory rights
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
\u182\'3f5:470 ff.
}}}
}
);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pearson Dental Supplies, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Turcios)
}
}
(2010) 48 C4th 665, 676, 108 CR3d 171, 180
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
\u182\'3f5:178.3
}}}
, 5:456.3
}
}
); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2015) 60 C4th 909, 917, 182 CR3d 644, 649-650
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03c55bf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03c55bf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.1]
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
award required School District to comply with collective bargaining agreement
procedure for terminating a probationary teacher. The court held the collective
bargaining agreement procedure was preempted by conflicting Education Code
provisions that mandated the process for terminating a probationary employee:
\u8220\'3f(R)igidly insisting on
}
arbitral
}
}
}
finality here would be inconsistent with the protection of a party\rquote s [i.e.,
District\rquote s] statutory rights.\u8221\'3f [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Board of Ed. of Round Valley Unified School Dist. v. Round Valley Teachers
Ass\rquote n
}
}
(1996) 13 C4th 269, 277, 52 CR2d 115, 119
}}}
(brackets in original; internal quotes omitted);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Teachers of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
}
}
(2012) 54 C4th 504, 509-510, 142 CR3d 850, 853-854
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:214.20
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03ce35904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03ce35904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.2] But a public safety officer who
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
voluntarily
}
}
submitted his employment termination dispute to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
waived
}
}
his statutory right to seek
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
under
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000211&cite=CAGTS3309.5&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
Gov.C. \u167\'3f 3309.5
}}}
(\u8220\'3fPublic Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act\u8221\'3f).
Granting finality to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award in this case was not inconsistent with protecting the officer\rquote s
statutory rights. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Zazueta v. County of San Benito
}
}
(1996) 38 CA4th 106, 111-112, 44 CR2d 678, 681
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03d69a004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03d69a004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.3] A reasoned award is required in an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
adjudicating a Fair Employment and Housing Act (
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000211&cite=CAGTS12940&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
db7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
Gov.C. \u167\'3f 12940 et seq.
}}}
) discrimination claim and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
some enhanced
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
}
of such an award may be required. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc.
}
}
(2000) 24 C4th 83, 106-107, 99 CR2d 745, 762
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see discussion at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a419.1a&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:419.1a" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:419.1a
}}}
}
] (The California Supreme Court declined to address what level of review courts
should give such awards.)
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Where a clear error of law deprives an employee subject to a mandatory
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement of a hearing on the merits of a nonwaivable statutory employment claim,
the award must be vacated. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:178.3
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.4] The
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Armendariz
}
}
requirements for a reasoned written
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award and
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
(above) apply to nonstatutory claims such as wrongful termination in violation of
public policy. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Little v. Auto Stiegler, Inc.
}
}
(2003) 29 C4th 1064, 1076, 130 CR2d 892, 901
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f
}
5:155.10
}}}
,
}
764_5%3a419.1b&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:419.1b" }{\fldrslt
5:419.1b
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I61307ac079a511e598ebf0620c81f}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I61307ac079a511e598ebf0620c81f}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.4a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare
}
}
: Employer fired Employee who was absent on approved medical leave but engaged in
outside employment.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
, relying on the federal \u8220\'3fhonest belief\u8221\'3f defense that Employee
was violating company policy by engaging in outside employment while on medical
leave or abusing medical leave, rejected Employee\rquote s claim that Employer
violated Employee\rquote s right to reinstatement under the Moore-Brown-Roberti
Family Rights Act (
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000211&cite=CAGTS12945.1&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
cddb7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
Gov.C. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 12945.1
}}}
,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000211&cite=CAGTS12945.2&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
12945.2
}}}
) and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) (
}
29 USC \u167\'3f 2601 et seq.
}}}
). The California Supreme Court declined to rule whether the \u8220\'3fhonest
belief\u8221\'3f defense is valid in California because it found ample evidence to
support
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision based on the alternate theory that Employee violated company policy. Even
if
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
applied the wrong legal standard,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
made no legal error that deprived Employee of a nonwaivable statutory right, which
might have supported vacatur; any mistake was not prejudicial. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 60 C4th at 912-913, 920-921, 182 CR3d at 646, 652-653
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03e89b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03e89b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
f. [5:456.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of choice of law provision on award upholding covenant not to compete:
}
}
A choice of law provision in the underlying contract may designate the substantive
law the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are to apply in resolving the dispute. California courts may be required to
confirm an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award upholding a covenant not to compete under the laws of another state where
the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
authorized the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to determine the applicable law
}
}
and enforceability of the covenant. It is immaterial that the court disagrees with
the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jones v. Humanscale Corp
}
}
. (2005) 130 CA4th 401, 409-410, 29 CR3d 881, 888
}}}
\u8212\'3femployment agreement required
}
binding
}
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
in New Jersey and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
expressly authorized
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to modify any part of the noncompetition covenant
}
}
found unenforceable]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03ee40b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03ee40b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
g. [5:456.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Expanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award by agreement:
}
}
Under California law, parties may agree to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award on its merits (e.g., for errors of law). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cable Connection, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc.
}
}
(2008) 44 C4th 1334, 1340, 1361, 82 CR3d 229, 233, 251
}}}
(disapproving conflicting court of appeal decisions)]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Caution:
}
}
The California Supreme Court\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cable Connection
}
}
holding is based on the California
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act. When the FAA applies, even where the case is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
pending in a California state court
}
}
, there is no basis for arguing that any enhanced review provision of the
parties\rquote
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement is applicable. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Countrywide Fin\rquote l Corp. v. Bundy
}
}
(2010) 187 CA4th 234, 238, 248, 113 CR3d 705, 707, 715
}}}
\u8212\'3fapplying FAA vacatur provisions, including manifest disregard rule, but
noting uncertainty whether rule is still viable (finding no basis for vacatur);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:456.8
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03f62ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03f62ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
\par
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
(1) Application
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03f78f804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03f78f804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.7] An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement provided: \u8220\'3fThe
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
shall prepare in writing and provide to the parties an award including factual
findings and the reasons on which their decision is based.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
shall not have the power to commit errors of law or legal reasoning, and the award
may be vacated or corrected on appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction for any
such error
}
}
.\u8221\'3f Because the parties expressly agreed that errors of law were in
\u8220\'3fexcess of
}
arbitral
}
}
}
authority that is reviewable by the courts,\u8221\'3f
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the merits was allowed. \u8220\'3f(P)arties seeking to allow
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the merits would be well advised to provide for that review explicitly and
unambiguously.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1341, 1361, 82 CR3d at 234, 251 & fns. 3
}}}
& 20 (emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I03fdf8204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I03fdf8204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.7a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement stated that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
shall render an award in accordance with substantive California Law
}
}
.\u8221\'3f But the clause \u8220\'3fprovide(d) no hint the parties contemplated
appellate review of the merits.\u8221\'3f Thus, the provision was insufficient to
meet
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
DIRECTV
}
}
\lquote s test (above) requiring enhanced review of any award. Moreover, the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement provided that interpretation of the agreement was governed by the FAA,
which does not allow parties to agree to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
for legal error (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:456.8
}}}
}
). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Christensen v. Smith
}
}
(2009) 171 CA4th 931, 936-938, 90 CR3d 57, 61-62
}}}
(emphasis in original);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gravillis v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co
}
}
. (2010) 182 CA4th 503, 518, 106 CR3d 70, 81-82
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement in standard form Residential Purchase Agreement contained no reference
to enhanced review of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award as in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cable Connection
}
}
, indicating parties intended general rule of nonreviewability to apply]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:456.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by agreement unenforceable under FAA:
}
}
The Federal
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act (FAA) does not permit parties to expand the scope of
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
beyond the statutory grounds set forth in
}
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 10
}}}
and
}
11
}}}
. However, this limitation applies only to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
under the FAA. It does not foreclose broader review when authorized by state
statute or common law. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc.
}
}
(2008) 552 US 576, 586-589, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1404-1406
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:461 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The FAA provisions limiting
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
do
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
preempt California\rquote s expanded grounds for review, even in cases involving
interstate commerce. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1353-1354, 82 CR3d at 244-245
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I041d18e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I041d18e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:456.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTERS
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you include a provision for
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the merits in your
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement, consider using the clause approved by the California Supreme Court in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cable Connection
}
}
as modified below. (Note: \u8220\'3f\u8230\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
appeal to a court
}
}
\u8221\'3f in the last clause quoted at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:456.7
}}}
}
should be changed to \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
petition to a court
}
}
.\u8221\'3f)
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Because the CAA and FAA now apply completely different rules in assessing the
enforceability of an enhanced review provision, include a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
choice of law
}
}
provision identifying California law as the applicable governing law for the
review process. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ
}
}
. (1989) 489 US 468, 477-479, 109 S.Ct. 1248, 1255-1256
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ddb7f2f8&refType=TS&docFamilyGuid=Id61d5717c26511e4852ff42c24d8d280&fi=co_pp_sp_106
\u182\'3f5:72.3
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Submission of the petition to confirm, correct or vacate the award to a California
state court and reliance on the CAA may also suffice to assure application of the
CAA to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1340, 1350, 1352, 82 CR3d at 234, 242, 243, fns. 2
}}}
, 12 & 13\u8212\'3fcontract allowed enforcement proceedings in state or federal
court and parties proceeded in state court under CAA, although
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceedings were governed by federal law and AAA rules under contract terms]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But the safest course is to specify in the parties\rquote agreement that the award
will be subject to review for legal error, confirmation, correction or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacatur
}
}
only in a California state court of competent jurisdiction and only pursuant to
the CAA. Consider the following:
\par
}
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fThe
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
shall prepare in writing and provide to the parties an award including factual
findings and the reasons on which their decision is based.The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
shall not have the power to commit errors of law or legal reasoning. The award is
subject to review for legal error, confirmation, correction or vacatur
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
only
}
}
in a California state court of competent jurisdiction and only pursuant to the
California
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gravillis v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Co.
}
}
(2010) 182 CA4th 503, 517, 106 CR3d 70, 81
}}}
(emphasis in original) (citing text);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRAPPD&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb
7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docum
Appendix D, Form 61
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri800 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:456.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded appellate review by stipulation to \u8220\'3fprivate
judge\u8221\'3f process:
}
}
Under California law, parties may preserve the right to full appellate review by
stipulating to appointment of a \u8220\'3fprivate judge\u8221\'3f (i.e., either a
temporary judge under
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000203&cite=CACNART6S21&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
Cal. Const. Art. VI, \u167\'3f 21
}}}
, or a general referee under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 638
}}}
). The private judge\rquote s statement of decision results in a fully appealable
}
judgment
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
City of Shasta Lake v. County of Shasta
}
}
(1999) 75 CA4th 1, 11-12, 88 CR2d 863, 869-870
}}}
\u8212\'3fdespite \u8220\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f label, parties\rquote stipulation called for temporary judge proceeding
and
}
judgment
}
}
}
was appealable;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
}
}
(1999) 69 CA4th 709, 715-716, 82 CR2d 16, 19
}}}
\u8212\'3fnunc pro tunc modification of stipulation for \u8220\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f to \u8220\'3freference\u8221\'3f permitted to allow appeal; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1345, 82 CR3d at 238 & fn. 8
}}}
\u8212\'3fnoting that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
City of Shasta Lake
}
}
and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
National Union
}
}
decisions \u8220\'3ftreated
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceedings as other forms of alternative dispute resolution, so as to permit
review of the merits\u8221\'3f;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_6%3a5&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem
&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_6:5" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f6:5
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:456.11]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you wish to preserve the right to full appellate review, consider stipulating
to appointment of a \u8220\'3fprivate judge\u8221\'3f as an alternative to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I043f1fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I043f1fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
h. [5:456.12]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fexpanded review under provider rules:
}
}
Some institutional providers have internal procedures for review of an award
before it becomes final (e.g., review by another
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
or, more commonly, by a panel). The review becomes the final award subject to
court review. [See JAMS Comprehensive
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Rules and Procedures, Rule 34\u8212\'3fparties may agree to optional appeal
procedure]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
i. [5:456.12a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3femployment agreement providing for expanded review:
}
}
Likewise, the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement may provide for review of an award before it becomes final. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cummings v. Future Nissan
}
}
(2005) 128 CA4th 321, 323, 27 CR3d 10, 11
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:456_12b_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:456_12b_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:456.12b] An employment contract contained an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause providing for review of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award at the request of either party \u8220\'3fby a second
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
who shall \u8230\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
proceed according to the law and procedures applicable to appellate review by the
California Court of Appeal of a civil
}
judgment
}
}
}
following
}
}
[a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
court trial
}
}
.\u8221\'3f The second level review resulted in a reversal of the initial
}
arbitration
}
}
}
decision. The second level review/award was enforceable. The second
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
acted as an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arbitrator
}
}
}
}
, not as a judge, pursuant to a contractual grant of power. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cummings v. Future Nissan
}
}
, supra, 128 CA4th at 323-324, 331, 27 CR3d at 11-12, 17 & fn. 3
}}}
(emphasis in original)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I044fc1a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I044fc1a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
j. [5:457]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fbroader review under federal standards?
}
}
Like the California statute, the FAA sets forth specific statutory grounds on
which an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award may be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacated
}
}
(
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
\u182\'3f5:463 ff.
}}}
}
). In addition to these statutory grounds, federal courts are split on whether
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards may be challenged for \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of the law\u8221\'3f:
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I61df315079a511e598ebf0620c81f}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I61df315079a511e598ebf0620c81f}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:457.1]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
View allowing challenges based on \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of the
law\u8221\'3f:
}
}
Some federal courts recognize \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of the law\u8221\'3f as
a ground for challenge to an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\rquote s, London
}
}
(9th Cir. 2010) 607 F3d 634, 641 & fn. 5
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, North America LLC
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2007) 497 F3d 133, 139
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Brand
}
}
(4th Cir. 2012) 671 F3d 472, 480-483
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote attorney fee award did not constitute manifest disregard of law]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I61ed3b1079a511e598ebf0620c81f}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I61ed3b1079a511e598ebf0620c81f}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:457.2]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Contra view:
}
}
Other federal courts have
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
rejected
}
}
the \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of the law\u8221\'3f test as meaningless,
confusing and superfluous to the statutory \u8220\'3fexceeded their
powers\u8221\'3f ground (see
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)
}}}
,
}
\u182\'3f5:465
}}}
). [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baravati v. Josephthal, Lyon & Ross, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1994) 28 F3d 704, 706
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I61fa336079a511e598ebf0620c81f}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I61fa336079a511e598ebf0620c81f}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:457.3] \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Arbitrariness and capriciousness\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcompletely
irrational\u8221\'3f:
}
}
One federal circuit has recognized \u8220\'3farbitrariness and
capriciousness\u8221\'3f as an independent nonstatutory ground for vacating an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. Some federal courts conclude that vacatur may be
}
ordered
}
}
}
when an award is \u8220\'3fcompletely irrational.\u8221\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
\u182\'3f5:460.1
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I620556f079a511e598ebf0620c81f}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I620556f079a511e598ebf0620c81f}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:457.4]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Caution\u8212\'3fHall Street dictum:
}
}
The Supreme Court may have signaled a death knell to \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard
of the law\u8221\'3f challenges. The Court noted the origin of \u8220\'3fmanifest
disregard\u8221\'3f in an earlier opinion (
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wilko v. Swan
}
}
(1953) 346 US 427, 436-437, 74 S.Ct. 182, 187-188
}}}
) and acknowledged that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Wilko
}
}
included some language \u8220\'3farguably\u8221\'3f favoring nonstatutory grounds
for vacatur\u8212\'3fbut \u8220\'3farguable is as far as it goes.\u8221\'3f The
term can be read as \u8220\'3fmerely referring to the
}
\u167\'3f 10
}}}
grounds collectively, rather than adding to them.\u8221\'3f Or it possibly was
used as \u8220\'3fshorthand for (
}
\u167\'3f 10
}}}
) subsections authorizing vacatur when
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
were \u8216\'3fguilty of misconduct\u8217\'3f or \u8216\'3fexceeded their
powers.\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f
}
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2008) 552 US 576, 584-585, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1403-1404
}}}
(dictum) (parentheses added); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int\rquote l Corp
}
}
. (2010) 559 US 662, 672, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1768, fn. 3
}}}
(leaving open question whether \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard\u8221\'3f as
independent ground for vacatur survives
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hall Street
}
}
\u8220\'3for as a judicial gloss on the enumerated grounds\u8221\'3f at
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10
}}}
)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Based on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hall Street
}
}
, several federal courts have held that manifest disregard of the law is no longer
a basis to vacate an award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Bacon
}
}
(5th Cir. 2009) 562 F3d 349, 350
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Medicine Shoppe Int\u8217\'3fl, Inc. v. Turner Investments Inc
}
}
. (8th Cir. 2010) 614 F3d 485, 488-489
}}}
; and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Frazier v. CitiFinancial Corp., LLC
}
}
(11th Cir. 2010) 604 F3d 1313, 1323-1324
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fjudicially-created bases for vacatur are no
longer valid in light of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hall Street
}
}
\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Other federal courts disagree. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\rquote s, London
}
}
, supra, 607 F3d at 641, fn. 5
}}}
\u8212\'3fNinth Circuit precedent establishing \u8220\'3fmanifest
disregard\u8221\'3f survives
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hall Street
}
}
\u8220\'3fas an independent ground of vacatur\u8221\'3f;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jones v. Dancel
}
}
(4th Cir. 2015) 792 F3d 395, 401
}}}
; see also
}
cddb7f2f8&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_506_63&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1
.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_506_63" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Raymond James Fin\rquote l Services, Inc. v. Fenyk
}
}
(1st Cir. 2015) 780 F3d 59, 63-64
}}}
(recognizing, but not deciding, whether \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard\u8221\'3f
remains good law after
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hall Street
}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment:
}
}
}
Although the Supreme Court did
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
decide whether parties may still advance manifest disregard challenges, the
manifest disregard authority, discussed below (
}
\u182\'3f5:458 ff.
}}}
), should be relied on with caution, mindful of the conflicting circuit views.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0474d5d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0474d5d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:458]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rationale:
}
}
Agreeing to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
a claim is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
a waiver of substantive rights afforded by law. It is merely an agreement that
such rights be determined in an
}
arbitral
}
}
}
, rather than a judicial, forum. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
}
}
(1985) 473 US 614, 628, 105 S.Ct. 3346, 3355
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fBy agreeing to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
a statutory claim, a party does not forego the substantive rights afforded by the
statute\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I047aa2304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I047aa2304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:459]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
What constitutes \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of law\u8221\'3f:
}
}
Most courts hold that to modify or vacate an award on this ground, a court must
find that:
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fthe
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
knew of a governing legal principle yet refused to apply it or ignored it
altogether\u8221\'3f; and
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fthe law ignored by the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
was well-defined, explicit, and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
clearly applicable
}
}
to the case.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, North America LLC
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2007) 497 F3d 133, 139
}}}
(emphasis added; internal quotes omitted);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2007) 505 F3d 874, 879-880
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
St. John\rquote s Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Delfino
}
}
(8th Cir. 2005) 414 F3d 882, 884
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Contra view:
}
}
A minority view is that an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award may be challenged on the basis of manifest disregard of the law
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
only
}
}
if the award directs the parties to violate the law or fails to follow the legal
principles specified in their contract. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Halim v. Great Gatsby\rquote s Auction Gallery, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2008) 516 F3d 557, 563
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
(a) Application
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.1] During opening and closing argument, attorney
\u8220\'3fflagrantly and blatantly\u8221\'3f urged
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
to disregard governing statute and \u8220\'3fdo what is fair.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 1997) 128 F3d 1456, 1461-1462
}}}
\u8212\'3faward vacated when
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
acknowledged in record that they had been urged to disregard the law where
evidence to support award was marginal]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I048d3fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I048d3fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.2] The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
hearing a wrongful termination claim had two related employment agreements before
him.
}
Both agreements included
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clauses. One agreement had a one-year limitations period, but the other did not.
The latter
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement superseded the other agreement. In deciding the timeliness of the
employee\rquote s demand for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
implied a limitations period in the latter agreement and barred the claim. This
determination manifestly disregarded the law. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Patten v. Signator Ins. Agency, Inc.
}
}
(4th Cir. 2006) 441 F3d 230, 231-232, 236-237
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.3] Employee contended that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
extended a Supreme Court\rquote s ruling in a case, and thus disregarded it. But
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had discussed the ruling in almost every line of the opinion and award. Without
deciding whether the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
correctly interpreted the Supreme Court decision, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
clearly \u8220\'3fdid not
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ignore
}
}
it\u8221\'3f (no manifest disregard of law). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luong v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2004) 368 F3d 1109, 1112
}}}
(emphasis in original)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0497ee304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0497ee304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.4] Employee and Employer
}
arbitrated
}
}
}
claims arising under an employment severance agreement. Employee asserted defenses
of estoppel and unclean hands and, in seeking to vacate the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award against him, asserted that
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
had manifestly disregarded California law in failing to find those defenses to
have been established.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
found that Employee (an attorney formerly employed as counsel by Employer) had
violated his ethical duties by disclosing confidential information. Implicit in
this finding was
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
determination that the equities precluded assertion of an unclean hand defense or
equitable estoppel (no manifest disregard of law). [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2012) 668 F3d 665, 666-668]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:459.5 - 5:459.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04a052a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04a052a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:459.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
CAUTION
}
}
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
RISK OF SANCTIONS FOR MISUSE OF DOCTRINE
}
}
:
}
}
The Eleventh Circuit has warned that the manifest disregard doctrine is not a
refuge for a poor loser and that it was \u8220\'3fready, willing and able to
consider imposing sanctions\u8221\'3f for misuse of the doctrine. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
B.L. Harbert Int\rquote l, LLC v. Hercules Steel Co.
}
}
(11th Cir. 2006) 441 F3d 905, 913-914 (J. Carnes concur.opn.)
}}}
\u8212\'3fno evidence
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
disregarded the law]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Misuse of the doctrine may result in sanctions that include both attorney fees and
costs. [See
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1927
}}}
\u8212\'3fattorneys who have multiplied \u8220\'3fthe proceedings \u8230\'3f
unreasonably and vexatiously\u8221\'3f may be
}
ordered
}
}
}
to pay excess costs and expenses, including attorney fees, resulting from their
conduct]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Moreover, Rule 11 sanctions may be awarded against counsel for petitions to vacate
an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award based on the doctrine that lack merit. [See
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000600&cite=USFRCPR11&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
FRCP 11
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 516 F3d at 561, 564
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04a92c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04a92c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.10a] A district court\rquote s award of fees and costs incurred
in responding to the defendant\rquote s frivolous motions was proper. Defendant did
not show that the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
acted fraudulently or with manifest disregard of the law. Also, a motion for fees
and costs for a frivolous appeal was approved. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Dominion Video Satellite, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite L.L.C.
}
}
(10th Cir. 2005) 430 F3d 1269, 1280-1281
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04aeaa804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04aeaa804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.10b] A district court awarded
}
Rule 11
}}}
sanctions against a party\rquote s attorney for a petition to vacate based on
manifest disregard of the law. The petition relied on the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
refusal to decide a discovery dispute (telling the parties to cooperate) and an
objection to the extent of findings of fact and conclusions of law required by the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement. The district court found that the party failed to present a meritorious
objection to the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 516 F3d at 561, 563-564
}}}
\u8212\'3fappellate court lacked jurisdiction to review
}
order
}
}
}
imposing sanctions on party\rquote s attorney (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see further discussion at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:459.10
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04b5d6704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04b5d6704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:459_10c_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:459_10c_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:459.10c]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
A district court properly denied a motion to vacate and manifest disregard claim
but did not err in denying fees because the motion was not frivolous. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Puerto Rico Tel. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Phone Mfg. Corp.
}
}
(1st Cir. 2005) 427 F3d 21, 32-33 (applying Puerto Rico law)
}}}
(disapproved on another ground in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc
}
}
. (2008) 552 US 576, 583, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1403, fn. 5
}}}
)]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
See detailed discussion of sanctions in Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Federal Civ. Pro. Before Trial
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 17.
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04c31ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04c31ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:459.11]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fmanifest disregard of
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
evidence
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Manifest disregard of the evidence is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
a proper ground for vacating an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wallace v. Buttar
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2004) 378 F3d 182, 192-193
}}}
(collecting cases); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2003) 336 F3d 1128, 1133
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3f(m)anifest disregard of the facts is not an independent ground
for vacatur\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04ca48d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04ca48d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:460]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of nonreasoned award:
}
}
Nonreasoned awards (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:419
}}}
}
) may make claims of \u8220\'3fmanifest error of law\u8221\'3f difficult to
maintain: \u8220\'3f
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
are not required to provide the rationale for their award, and courts generally
will not look beyond the lump sum award in an attempt to analyze the reasoning
processes of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8230\'3f (T)he party challenging the award must show that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no proper basis
}
}
for the award
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
can be inferred
}
}
from the facts of the case.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wall Street Assocs., L.P. v. Becker Paribas Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1994) 27 F3d 845, 849
}}}
(emphasis added; internal quotes omitted); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 516 F3d at 563-564
}}}
\u8212\'3fabbreviated findings and conclusions not manifest disregard of law where
agreement called for findings of fact and conclusions of law]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:460.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of \u8220\'3farbitrary and capricious\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcompletely
irrational\u8221\'3f awards:
}
}
Several federal courts
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
reject
}
}
the \u8220\'3farbitrary and capricious\u8221\'3f test as an independent
nonstatutory ground to vacate an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brabham v. A.G. Edwards & Sons Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2004) 376 F3d 377, 382-386 & fn. 6
}}}
(collecting cases)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Contra authority:
}
}
But there is also authority recognizing arbitrariness and capriciousness as
grounds for vacatur. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lifecare Int\rquote l, Inc. v. CD Med., Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 1995) 68 F3d 429, 435
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fcompletely irrational\u8221\'3f awards:
}
}
Some federal courts hold that an award may be vacated as \u8220\'3fcompletely
irrational.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bosack v. Soward
}
}
(9th Cir. 2009) 586 F3d 1096, 1104, 1106
}}}
(en banc)\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3f
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
exceed their powers (under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(4)
}}}
) \u8230\'3f when they issue an award that is \u8216\'3fcompletely
irrational\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f (parentheses added); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ario v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for 1998 Year of Account
}
}
(3rd Cir. 2010) 618 F3d 277, 295-296
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schoch v. InfoUSA, Inc.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2003) 341 F3d 785, 788
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fcompletely irrational\u8221\'3f means award \u8220\'3ffails to
draw its essence from the agreement\u8221\'3f] (This is arguably within the
\u8220\'3farbitrary and capricious\u8221\'3f standard.)
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04e23da04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04e23da04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(6) [5:461]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Expanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by agreement unenforceable under FAA:
}
}
The Federal
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act (FAA) does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
permit parties to expand the scope of
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
beyond the statutory grounds set forth in
}
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 10
}}}
and
}
11
}}}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2008) 552 US 576, 586-587, 128 S.Ct. 1396, 1404-1405
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Countrywide Fin\rquote l Corp. v. Bundy
}
}
(2010) 187 CA4th 234, 238, 113 CR3d 705, 707
}}}
\u8212\'3fapplying FAA vacatur provisions based on parties\rquote agreement,
including manifest disregard rule, but noting uncertainty whether rule is still
viable (finding no basis for vacatur)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04e9dec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04e9dec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:461.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Agreement to bypass trial court review for direct appellate review unenforceable
under FAA:
}
}
Likewise, parties may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
bypass trial court review of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards governed by the FAA and agree instead on direct access to the appellate
courts. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2011) 635 F3d 401, 404, 406-408
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04edd6604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04edd6604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:461.2] The parties agreed to submit certain of their disputes to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fwith appeal rights\u8221\'3f and that \u8220\'3fwithin thirty days after
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
made an award, either party would be able to apply to the court for an
}
order
}
}
}
confirming the award in accordance with the (FAA).\u8221\'3f Claimant asked the
district court to confirm the award. A magistrate judge, interpreting the
parties\rquote
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement, declined to review the award, confirmed it and entered
}
judgment
}
}
}
so that the parties could seek review in the court of appeals. But the district
court had no right to decline review pursuant to the FAA, and the appellate court
did not have direct review jurisdiction of the award notwithstanding the
parties\rquote agreement to that effect. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.
}
}
, supra, 635 F3d at 404, 406-408
}}}
(parentheses added) (remanded case to district court to review award)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:461.3 - 5:461.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04f661e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04f661e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:461.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fbroader review authorized by state statute or common law:
}
}
However, the limitation on expanded
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by agreement applies only to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
under the FAA. It does not foreclose broader review when authorized by state
statute or common law. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 552 US at 590, 128 S.Ct. at 1406
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04fa59804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04fa59804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:461.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of awards for \u8220\'3fmanifest disregard of law\u8221\'3f?
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:457
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I04ff3b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I04ff3b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(d) [5:461.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fCalifornia law:
}
}
Under California law, parties may, by express agreement, obtain
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of the merits.They may agree, for example, that an \u8220\'3faward may be vacated
or corrected\u8221\'3f by a court \u8220\'3ffor errors of law or legal
reasoning.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2008) 44 C4th 1334, 1340, 82 CR3d 229, 233
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:456.6 ff.
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The FAA provisions limiting
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
do
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
preempt California\rquote s expanded grounds for review, even in cases involving
interstate commerce. \u8220\'3f(F)ederal law does not preclude more searching
review based on authority outside the [federal] statute, including state statutory
or common law.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1340, 1353-1354, 82 CR3d at 233, 244-245
}}}
(brackets in original; internal quotes omitted)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
In
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cable Connection
}
}
, supra, the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement stated that
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceedings would be governed by the FAA and AAA Rules. However, the agreement
permitted enforcement proceedings in either state or federal court. Because the
parties proceeded in state court under the CAA,
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
was governed by state law in assessing enforceability of the parties\rquote
agreement for enhanced review. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 44 C4th at 1340, 82 CR3d at 234, fn. 2
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I050c0cc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I050c0cc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:461.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you wish to preserve the right to full appellate review of an award, consider
using a \u8220\'3fprivate judge\u8221\'3f or an institutional provider that has
internal appellate review procedures.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:456.10 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
k. [5:462]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation on
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by contract?
}
}
Federal courts are split as to whether parties may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
limit
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
}
of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award.
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Some courts have held that an agreement to divest a court of its authority to
review
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards for compliance with
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)
}}}
(
}
\u182\'3f5:464
}}}
) was unenforceable. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hoeft v. MVL Group, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2003) 343 F3d 57, 63-66
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2013) 737 F3d 1262, 1264
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fnonappealability\u8221\'3f clause in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement that eliminates all federal court review of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards, including review under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10
}}}
, is not enforceable]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment:
}
}
Whether parties may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
limit
}
}
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is a different issue from the question decided in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 552 US at 585-586, 128 S.Ct. at 1404-1405
}}}
, and should be unaffected by that decision.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:461 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Some courts allow a limitation on
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by contract. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co.
}
}
(10th Cir. 2001) 254 F3d 925, 931
}}}
(dicta)\u8212\'3flimitation allowed if agreement is clear and specific; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Department of Air Force v. Federal Labor Relations Auth.
}
}
(6th Cir. 1985) 775 F2d 727, 733
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3flimitation on appeal of
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming or vacating award:
}
}
The Tenth Circuit has held, consistent with its dicta in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Bowen
}
}
, supra, that the parties may contractually limit any
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
appeal
}
}
from the
}
judgment
}
}
}
of the trial court on review of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick
}
}
(10th Cir. 2005) 427 F3d 821, 829-830
}}}
\u8212\'3fno appellate jurisdiction because parties\rquote contract preserved
district court review and provided
}
judgment
}
}
}
would be \u8220\'3ffinal\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3fnonappealable\u8221\'3f
(distinguishing
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Hoeft
}
}
, above, which only affected
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
district court
}
}
review)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In
}
order
}
}
}
to waive appellate review of the
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming or vacating an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award, the parties\rquote agreement must be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
explicit
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., Ltd
}
}
. (6th Cir. 2008) 512 F3d 294, 300-301
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
For example, an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement did not waive the right to appeal from the district court\rquote s
determination even though it provided that:
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fthere can be no appeal from any decision made by the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fparties shall be deemed to have consented to the
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote
}
judgment
}
}
}
upon the receipt of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
decision\u8221\'3f; and
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fthe award shall be exclusive, final, and
}
binding
}
}
}
to all issues and claims \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The parties did not express \u8220\'3fa desire to waive appealability, but even the
language that made the award \u8216\'3ffinal\u8217\'3f was tempered by a commitment
to future judicial intervention. The agreement stated that the district court
\u8216\'3fshall retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of \u8230\'3f
enforcing any award entered by the
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
.\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Uhl v. Komatsu Forklift Co., Ltd
}
}
., supra, 512 F3d at 299-301
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment:
}
}
The use of the term \u8220\'3fappeal,\u8221\'3f when referring to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards, often is a misnomer where \u8220\'3freview\u8221\'3f was intended. But
sometimes it is a reference to the notion that errors of fact or law are not
reviewable. The agreement in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Uhl
}
}
was unclear principally because the nomenclature was improper and the intent was
therefore not discernible with any degree of precision.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I584e1cd0638211e49988e100be0fe}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I584e1cd0638211e49988e100be0fe}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:462.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fCalifornia law:
}
}
Under California law, parties may, by \u8220\'3fclear and express\u8221\'3f
agreement, waive their rights to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cooper v. Lavely & Singer Professional Corp.
}
}
(2014) 230 CA4th 1, 19, 178 CR3d 322, 336
}}}
(collecting cases)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I5851ed60638211e49988e100be0fe}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I5851ed60638211e49988e100be0fe}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:462.2] Plaintiff did not clearly and expressly waive
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
by accepting
}
arbitration
}
}
}
governed by JAMS rules, including
}
Rule 11(a)
}}}
(
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
resolution of the dispute is final). JAMS Rule 4 provides that if any JAMS rule
conflicts with
}
\u8220\'3fapplicable law
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
,
}
}
the provision of law will govern \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f Rule 4 demonstrates an
intent to limit the operation of JAMS rules within the borders of the CAA. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2. [5:463]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Motion to Vacate or Correct
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
Award:
}
}
A court has the power to vacate or correct an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award on grounds set forth below. (It is immaterial whether the award was rendered
in California or elsewhere.) [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
; see
}
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 10
}}}
,
}
11
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0535dbe04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0535dbe04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a. [5:463.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statutory grounds exclusive:
}
}
\u8220\'3f(A)n award reached by an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
pursuant to a contractual agreement to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
is not subject to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
except on the grounds set forth in
}
sections 1286.2
}}}
(to vacate) and 1286.6 (for correction).\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 33, 10 CR2d 183, 203
}}}
(parentheses in original)]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Such relief may be granted on petition of either party. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baldwin Co. v. Rainey Construction Co., Inc.
}
}
(1991) 229 CA3d 1053, 1058, 280 CR 499, 502
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Courts may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
act sua sponte; such relief may be granted only on petition or motion of one of
the parties to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1286.4
}}}
,
}
1286.8
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
}
}
(1994) 25 CA4th 809, 818, 30 CR2d 785, 791
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
(Alternatively, an award may be challenged in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
response
}
}
to a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
petition to confirm
}
}
the award;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:536
}}}
}
.)
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0541e9d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0541e9d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:463.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Caution\u8212\'3fwaiver risk:
}
}
The right to challenge an award may be \u8220\'3fforfeited\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fwaived\u8221\'3f by a party if it withdraws from the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. In
}
order
}
}
}
to challenge an award in court, the litigant must have raised the point before the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Comerica Bank v. Howsam
}
}
(2012) 208 CA4th 790, 829-830, 145 CR3d 795, 826
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 30-31, 10 CR2d 183, 201-202
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:143
}}}
}
);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mossman v. City of Oakdale
}
}
(2009) 170 CA4th 83, 93, 87 CR3d 764, 772
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I054b86c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I054b86c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:463.3] In a procedurally complex international
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, lender sought to recover on loans made to finance motion pictures. Defendants
participated for a substantial time but withdrew before the evidentiary hearing in
the face of issues relating to possible discovery sanctions, billing and payment
disputes between the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and the parties, and an issue of
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
disclosure and disqualification. After entry of a substantial award in favor of
claimant, defendants sought to vacate the award on grounds, inter alia, of the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
manifest disregard of the law (i.e., by issuing an award exceeding that allowable
in case of a default
}
judgment
}
}
}
(
}
CCP \u167\'3f 580(a)
}}}
). But the trial court confirmed the award, and the appellate court affirmed.
Defendants\rquote withdrawal from the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fforfeited\u8221\'3f their opportunity to challenge the result of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
on the ground of violation of
}
\u167\'3f 580(a)
}}}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Comerica Bank v. Howsam
}
}
, supra, 208 CA4th at 811-816, 829-830, 145 CR3d at 811-815, 826
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
Waiver of the right to challenge an
}
arbitrability
}
}
}
determination is discussed at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:143 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0555bff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0555bff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
b. [5:464]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Grounds to vacate award:
}
}
An award may be set aside entirely if the court finds any of the following
grounds:
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
exceeded their powers
}
}
\u8221\'3f and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of their
decision (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:465 ff.
}}}
}
);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The award was \u8220\'3fprocured by corruption, fraud or other undue
means\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fcorruption in any of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:480 ff.
}}}
}
);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The award was issued by an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
required to disqualify himself or herself under
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS1281.91&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
1281.91
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:487 ff.
}}}
}
);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Rights of party challenging award were
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
substantially prejudiced
}
}
by the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
refusal to postpone the hearing despite the sufficient cause shown for
postponement; or
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
refusal to hear evidence material
}
}
to the controversy; or
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fmisconduct\u8221\'3f of a neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
or \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
other conduct \u8230\'3f contrary to the provisions of this title.
}
}
\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(1)-(6)
}}}
(emphasis added); see
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(1)-(4)
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}{\pntext }
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Moreover, some federal courts allow vacatur of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award based on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nonstatutory
}
}
grounds. Several federal courts permit a challenge based on \u8220\'3fmanifest
disregard of the law\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:457 ff.
}}}
}
). Others allow vacatur based on an \u8220\'3farbitrary and capricious\u8221\'3f
test (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:460.1
}}}
}
); and still others allow a challenge based on \u8220\'3fcomplete
irrationality\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:460.1
}}}
}
)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:465]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fExceeding
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power\u8221\'3f as ground to vacate award:
}
}
An award may be vacated where the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fexceeded their powers\u8221\'3f and it \u8220\'3fcannot be corrected
without affecting the merits\u8221\'3f of the decision. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(4)
}}}
;
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(4)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The \u8220\'3fmerits\u8221\'3f include all the contested issues of law and fact
submitted to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
for decision. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 28, 10 CR2d 183, 200
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2014) 230 CA4th 1, 21, 178 CR3d 322, 338
}}}
\u8212\'3fbecause
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
denial of attorney fees in \u8220\'3fFinal Award\u8221\'3f was based on
substantive determinations of law and fact regarding submitted issues,
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded powers in awarding fees in \u8220\'3fRevised Final Award\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
[5:466]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3ferrors by
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
generally not enough:
}
}
Except as discussed below,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
do not exceed their powers because of errors of fact or law, or because they
assign erroneous reasons for their decision. Otherwise, every losing party could
obtain
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
simply by claiming the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
erred and thus exceeded his or her powers. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1997) 121 F3d 818, 824
}}}
\u8212\'3finquiry under
}
\u167\'3f 10(a)(4)
}}}
focuses on whether
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
had the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
power
}
}
(based on parties\rquote submissions or
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
to reach a certain issue
}
}
, not whether they correctly decided that issue;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Alstom Transp., Inc
}
}
. (5th Cir. 2015) 777 F3d 785, 789
}}}
\u8212\'3freviewing court\rquote s differing interpretation of parties\rquote
agreement \u8220\'3fbeside the point\u8221\'3f because it is not court\rquote s
interpretation parties bargained for (
}
order
}
}
}
vacating award reversed)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I057be5904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I057be5904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
[5:466.1]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Exception\u8212\'3fclear legal error by
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
depriving employee of hearing on merits of nonwaivable statutory rights:
}
}
\u8220\'3f(W)hen \u8230\'3f an employee subject to a mandatory employment-
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement is unable to obtain a hearing on the merits of his FEHA claims, or
claims based on other unwaivable statutory rights, because of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award based on legal error, the trial court does not err in vacating the
award.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2010) 48 C4th 665, 680, 108 CR3d 171, 183
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:178.3
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
[5:466.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
The issue whether an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded the power granted by an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause \u8220\'3fcreates a tension between enforcing the parties\rquote
contractual intent and avoiding wholesale review for legal error.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy v. Universal Paragon Corp.
}
}
(2010) 187 CA4th 1405, 1418, 114 CR3d 781, 791, fn. 2
}}}
(citing text)\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3ftension appears to be unavoidable\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Many cases discussed below reflect this tension even when the court\rquote s
opinion does not expressly acknowledge that these issues potentially overlap.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I058cae704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I058cae704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:466.2a] Where the parties had agreed in correspondence to nonbinding
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, and the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
rendered a
}
binding
}
}
}
award based on an alleged agreement made at the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, the trial court was
}
ordered
}
}
}
to conduct a factual inquiry of the basis for the agreement for a
}
binding
}
}
}
award to assure that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had not exceeded his power. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trabuco Highlands Community Ass\rquote n v. Head
}
}
(2002) 96 CA4th 1183, 1186, 1190, 1192-1193, 117 CR2d 842, 843, 846, 849
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Glaser, Weil, Fink, Jacobs & Shapiro, LLP v. Goff
}
}
(2011) 194 CA4th 423, 441-442, 447, 125 CR3d 26, 39-40, 44
}}}
\u8212\'3fin MFAA
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, appellate court directed trial court to vacate award and declare it nonbinding
based on its independent determination that
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
exceeded their powers by issuing
}
binding
}
}
}
award where undisputed facts establish that
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was nonbinding as matter of law]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:466.3] In a labor
}
arbitration
}
}
}
,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
found that Housing Authority had failed to meet and confer (as required by the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)).
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
properly considered Union\rquote s proposed alternatives to the layoff of a
longtime employee.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
}
ordered
}
}
}
the employee reinstated to a position suggested by Union but ignored by Housing
Authority.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed her powers as defined by the parties\rquote stipulation. Nor did
she fashion a remedy that was directly contrary to the MOU layoff provisions.
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
remedy was rationally related to the claimed violation and was not expressly
prohibited by the MOU. Absent an express and unambiguous limitation in the contract
or the parties\rquote submission to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
had power to find the facts, interpret the contract, and award relief rationally
related to the findings and interpretation. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
San Francisco Housing Auth. v. SEIU Local 790
}
}
(2010) 182 CA4th 933, 943-944, 948-949, 107 CR3d 62, 70-71, 75
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0599cdd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0599cdd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:466.4] In a reinsurance contract dispute,
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
did not exceed their authority under stipulated protocols. The protocols provided
that the second phase of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, involving workers\rquote compensation, would be governed by the law of the case
so that no issue previously decided by
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
would be revisited. Nor did
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
exceed their powers by issuing an award in the second phase that required the
reinsurer to pay interest in excess of that awarded in the first phase. The awards
addressed different issues: Phase one provided interest to insurers for their
contractual right to recovery; in phase two, the interest awarded was a
disgorgement award for the reinsurer\rquote s delayed payment. Also, the
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote awards requiring payment of tendered bills and payment of future bills
within 30 days were not grounds for vacatur. The choice of remedies was \u8220\'3fa
plausible interpretation of (
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote ) scope of authority and (their) broad power to fashion appropriate
remedies.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United States Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat\rquote l Ins. Co
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F3d 1167, 1177-1180
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05a05d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05a05d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:466.5] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed her power when she determined emotional distress damages at two
times economic damages. A court will not review an award for legal error (or as
arbitrary) under the statutory rubric of \u8220\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeding her powers.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shahinian v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
}
}
(2011) 194 CA4th 987, 1000-1001, 124 CR3d 128, 137-138
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:467]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction:
}
}
An award may be set aside on the ground the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
finding that he or she had appropriate jurisdiction is not
}
binding
}
}
}
on the court. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Stites Professional Law Corp.
}
}
(1991) 235 CA3d 1718, 1724, 1 CR2d 570, 573
}}}
\u8212\'3finsurer disputing fees charged by
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cumis
}
}
counsel improperly invoked statute for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of attorney-client fee disputes: award set aside despite
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
findings he had jurisdiction; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Glassman v. McNab
}
}
(2003) 112 CA4th 1593, 1600-1602, 6 CR3d 293, 298-299
}}}
\u8212\'3fparties\rquote stipulation gave
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether attorney-client relationship existed
in attorney-client fee dispute (award confirmed)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05af03804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05af03804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:468]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Illegal contract:
}
}
An award upholding an illegal contract exceeds the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers: \u8220\'3f(A)n award springing out of an illegal contract, which no court
can enforce, cannot stand on any higher ground than the contract itself.\u8221\'3f
[
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Loving & Evans v. Blick
}
}
(1949) 33 C2d 603, 610, 204 P2d 23, 27
}}}
\u8212\'3faward on building contract vacated because contractor was unlicensed;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lindenstadt v. Staff Builders, Inc.
}
}
(1997) 55 CA4th 882, 892, 64 CR2d 484, 490
}}}
(citing text)\u8212\'3fpublic policy requires that issue of legality be
independently determined by court; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ahdout v. Hekmatjah
}
}
(2013) 213 CA4th 21, 33-36, 152 CR3d 199, 210-213
}}}
\u8212\'3fillegality exception recognized but found inapplicable because alleged
illegality did not contaminate entire contract]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05b62f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05b62f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:469]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
findings not determinative:
}
}
Since the issue of illegality is one for judicial determination (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:136
}}}
}
), the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
finding that the contract is legal is not
}
binding
}
}
}
on the court. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Loving & Evans v. Blick
}
}
, supra, 33 C2d at 609, 204 P2d at 27
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3ftrial court must conduct
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
de novo
}
}
review of claim of illegality]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the trial court refuses to vacate the award, the appellate court also reviews
claims of illegality
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
de novo
}
}
(except as to determinations of disputed fact issues, as to which the standard of
review is substantial evidence). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 55 CA4th at 892, 64 CR2d at 490, fn. 7
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05bdd0904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05bdd0904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:470]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fpartial illegality:
}
}
By contrast, a claim that a particular provision of the underlying contract is
illegal (rather than the whole contract) is an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arbitrable
}
}
}
issue
}
}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:140
}}}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wolitarsky v. Blue Cross of Calif.
}
}
(1997) 53 CA4th 338, 344, 61 CR2d 629, 631
}}}
\u8212\'3falleged illegality of health insurance policy\rquote s increased
deductible for maternity benefits did not prohibit
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of benefits dispute;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:142.1
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision on a claim of partial illegality is generally
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not reviewable
}
}
except in rare cases when according finality to the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision would be incompatible with the protection of a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
statutory
}
}
right. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2010) 187 CA4th 1405, 1418, 114 CR3d 781, 790-791
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ahdout v. Hekmatjah
}
}
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:472 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:471] Attorney claimed a fee-splitting provision in his employment
agreement with Law Firm was illegal. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
ruled against Attorney on this issue. This was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not reviewable
}
}
by the court on a petition to vacate the award: \u8220\'3fWe perceive, however,
nothing \u8230\'3f that suggests resolution by an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
of what is essentially an ordinary fee dispute would be inappropriate or would
improperly protect the public interest.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05d43ec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05d43ec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:472]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Public policy:
}
}
An award may \u8220\'3fexceed the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power\u8221\'3f if it violates a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
well-defined
}
}
and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dominant
}
}
public policy as \u8220\'3fascertained by reference to the laws and legal
precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public
interests.\u8221\'3f
}
[See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Paperworkers Int\rquote l Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc.
}
}
(1987) 484 US 29, 43-44, 108 S.Ct. 364, 373-374
}}}
\u8212\'3faward reinstating employee discharged for drug use not subject to
challenge on public policy grounds; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3fattorney fee agreement and fee award not unconscionable or in violation
of public policy as stated in Calif. Rules of Professional Conduct (
}
findType=L&pubNum=1003711&cite=CASTRPCR4-
200&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=
document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }
{\fldrslt
CRPC 4-200
}}}
) (assuming unconscionability issue was subject to
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
as predicate for deciding whether award violated public policy); and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Department of Personnel Admin. v. California Correctional Peace Officers Ass\rquote
n
}
}
(2007) 152 CA4th 1193, 1200, 1203, 62 CR3d 110, 115, 118
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded power by reforming collective bargaining memorandum of understanding
after legislative approval (violation of Dills Act, which requires legislative
approval of CBAs)]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05dc7c204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05dc7c204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:472.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Test:
}
}
To vacate an
}
arbitral
}
}
}
award on public policy grounds, a court must articulate \u8220\'3fan
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
explicit, well-defined and dominant
}
}
public policy\u8221\'3f ascertained by reference to \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
positive law\u8221\'3f
}
}
(e.g., legislation, implementing regulations or interpretive case law) rather than
from general considerations of supposed public interests. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2000) 531 US 57, 63, 121 S.Ct. 462, 467
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The public policy ground must be \u8220\'3fone that specifically militates against
the relief
}
ordered
}
}
}
by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees Int\rquote l Union, Local 1877, AFL
CIO
}
}
(9th Cir. 2008) 530 F3d 817, 823
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Even in the absence of \u8220\'3fpositive law,\u8221\'3f in certain
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
egregious circumstances
}
}
an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award may be found to be unenforceable as contrary to public policy. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 531 US at 63, 121 S.Ct. at 467
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fWe agree, in principle, that courts\rquote authority to invoke
the public policy exception is not limited solely to instances where the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award itself violates positive law\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05e778a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05e778a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:472.2] An award
}
ordering
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
reinstatement
}
}
of a truck driver who twice failed drug tests did not violate public policy (as
reflected in a federal statute requiring random drug testing of workers engaged in
safetysensitive tasks) where the award was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
conditional
}
}
on the employee\rquote s participation in a substance abuse program. The award
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
violated no specific provision of any law or regulation
}
}
, and was consistent with the statute\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
rehabilitative concerns
}
}
because it required substance abuse treatment and testing before the driver could
return to work. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 531 US at 66, 121 S.Ct. at 469
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05ee7d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05ee7d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:472.3] An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award
}
ordering
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
reinstatement
}
}
of Employee who threatened to shoot a fellow worker and had been enjoined by a
court from going to that worker\rquote s place of business did
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
violate public policy requiring employers to provide a safe workplace (as
reflected in
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000215&cite=CALBS6400&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
Lab.C. \u167\'3f 6400 et seq.
}}}
).
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, the requirement that Employee be reemployed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
at the same worksite
}
}
where the fellow worker was employed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
violated
}
}
public policy requiring obedience to court
}
orders
}
}
}
, because Employee had been enjoined from returning to that worksite. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees Int\rquote l Union, Local 715
}
}
(1999) 77 CA4th 327, 338-340, 91 CR2d 500, 507-508
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I05f6bae04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I05f6bae04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:472.4] An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award against an unlicensed general contractor did not require the contractor to
disgorge all compensation.
}
The trial court erroneously denied vacatur of the award without examining the legal
correctness of the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
determination. The \u8220\'3fwell-defined\u8221\'3f public policy
(Contractors\rquote State License Law,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000199&cite=CABPS7031&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
Bus. & Prof.C. \u167\'3f 7031(b)
}}}
) protecting against unlicensed contractors required examining the merits of that
determination. The enforcement of an award that violates a party\rquote s statutory
rights exceeds the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power. On remand, the trial court must review the evidence de novo to determine
whether
}
\u167\'3f 7031(b)
}}}
applies. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ahdout v. Hekmatjah
}
}
(2013) 213 CA4th 21, 24, 36-40, 152 CR3d 199, 202-203, 213-216
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I060253a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I060253a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(d) [5:472.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Right to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
waived:
}
}
An award \u8220\'3fexceeds the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers\u8221\'3f if the prevailing party had
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
waived
}
}
its right to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(e.g., by pursuing inconsistent legal remedies). [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Juodakis v. Wolfrum
}
}
(1986) 177 CA3d 587, 594, 223 CR 95, 99
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
Waiver as a defense to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
is discussed at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:167 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0609f4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0609f4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(e) [5:473]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Decision beyond issues submitted:
}
}
An award on issues not submitted to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fexceeds the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local
70
}
}
(1986) 183 CA3d 1138, 1143, 228 CR 645, 647
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kurtin v. Elieff
}
}
(2013) 215 CA4th 455, 467-468, 155 CR3d 573, 583-584
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers are fixed by
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1995) 44 F3d 826, 830
}}}
\u8212\'3faward must \u8220\'3fdraw its essence\u8221\'3f from the contract]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:473.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Issues submitted beyond
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement:
}
}
The parties may submit for decision issues they were not contractually compelled
to submit to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. In such event, courts look both to the contract
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
to the scope of the submissions to determine the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
authority. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Executone Information Systems, Inc. v. Davis
}
}
(5th Cir. 1994) 26 F3d 1314, 1323
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kelly Sutherlin McLeod Architecture, Inc. v. Schneickert
}
}
(2011) 194 CA4th 519, 529, 125 CR3d 83, 91
}}}
(citing text); and see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1996) 43 CA4th 1282, 1291, 51 CR2d 338, 343
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:473.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Deference to
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
interpretation:
}
}
The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
view of the scope of his or her powers and issues submitted for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
receives the same judicial deference as the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
determination on the merits. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2006) 442 F3d 727, 733
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Madison Hotel v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees, Local 25, AFL-CIO
}
}
(DC Cir. 1998) 144 F3d 855, 857
}}}
(en banc);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
}
}
(2010) 185 CA4th 1413, 1437, 111 CR3d 468, 487
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourts \u8220\'3fmust give substantial deference to the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
own assessment of his (or her) contractual authority\u8221\'3f (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRP5%3a416.3&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c8
5ecddb7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:416.3
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
3) Application
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0625ba204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0625ba204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:474]
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
was asked to decide whether Employee had been discharged in accordance with
collective bargaining agreement; and, if
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
, to award damages.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
found discharge was in accordance with CBA but awarded damages nevertheless. The
award \u8220\'3fexceeded the powers\u8221\'3f of the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
70
}
}
, supra]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:474.1] Attorney\rquote s employment contract authorized
}
arbitration
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
only
}
}
on questions of ambiguity or interpretation of the contract. Questions concerning
breach of contract were not within the scope of the clause and were beyond the
powers of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
.
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
award for breach of contract was vacated. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel
}
}
(1st Cir. 2000) 223 F3d 1, 10
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:475]
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
demand and counterdemand raised only
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
contractual
}
}
issues. Although the parties argued and submitted briefs on fraud claims, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
expressly stated he was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
ruling on fraud. Since only contractual issues were submitted, an award for
emotional distress damages exceeded the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cobler v. Stanley, Barber, Southard, Brown & Assocs.
}
}
(1990) 217 CA3d 518, 531-532, 265 CR 868, 876
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:475.1]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
The submission agreement required the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
to determine whether a contract should be rescinded or enforced. An award for
partial reimbursement did not exceed the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote powers because the extent and conditions for reimbursement were
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
implicit
}
}
in the submission. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Michigan Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1995) 44 F3d 826, 830
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I063ec0604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I063ec0604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:475.2]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
Each side in an uninsured motorist
}
arbitration
}
}
}
raised the issue of a workers\rquote compensation setoff, a
\u8220\'3fcoverage\u8221\'3f issue that the insurance policy barred the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
from considering. Nonetheless,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
because the parties raised the issue themselves
}
}
, they effectively \u8220\'3fsubmitted\u8221\'3f the matter to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. Accordingly, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed his power in deciding this \u8220\'3fcoverage\u8221\'3f question. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1996) 43 CA4th 1282, 1290-1291, 51 CR2d 338, 343-344
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:475.3] A party demanded
}
arbitration
}
}
}
asserting claims for commissions. The other party made no objection to the scope
of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. The demand effectively supplemented the scope of
}
arbitrability
}
}
}
defined in the parties\rquote agreement. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed his power by awarding the claimant its commissions as damages based
on quasi-contract or estoppel. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(9th Cir. 2006) 442 F3d 727, 733-734
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I064c54f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I064c54f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:475.4] An injunction may not
}
bind
}
}
}
nonparties to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. In interpreting and enforcing a trademark agreement, an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his authority in issuing injunctions to
}
bind
}
}
}
a parties\rquote affiliates, including relatives, who were not parties to a
trademark agreement and therefore could not be bound by its provisions. That
portion of the award was vacated. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2009) 553 F3d 1277, 1288
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
4) [5:475.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3frole of lawsuit pleadings:
}
}
Where plaintiff \lquote s lawsuit has been stayed pending
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, the award may encompass any issues
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
submitted by the parties whether or not pleaded
}
}
in the complaint. In such cases, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
does not \u8220\'3fexceed his powers\u8221\'3f in going beyond issues raised in
the lawsuit pleadings. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hall v. Sup.Ct. (Trompas)
}
}
(1993) 18 CA4th 427, 435-436, 22 CR2d 376, 381
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(f) [5:476]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to comply with
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement:
}
}
Likewise, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeds his or her powers by making an award that fails to comply with the terms
of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Western Employers Ins. Co. v. Jefferies & Co., Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1992) 958 F2d 258, 262
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I065f8ed04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I065f8ed04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
\par
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
1) Application
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0660ee604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0660ee604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477] The agreement required the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law with the award. The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote decision contained no such findings or conclusions. The award exceeded the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote powers because it failed to comply with the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement. It was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
immaterial
}
}
that such findings and conclusions would not change the outcome or benefit the
losing party. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 958 F2d at 262
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0666bac04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0666bac04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:477a_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:477a_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
The agreement required the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to provide findings of fact and conclusions of law with the award. Excerpts from
the award demonstrated that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
gave full consideration to the issues and provided findings and conclusions,
albeit in less elaborate fashion than the losing claimant preferred.The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed his power by not explaining his award in greater detail. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 2008) 516 F3d 557, 563-564
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:477b_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:477b_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477b]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
An employment
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement required the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to \u8220\'3fexplain\u8221\'3f his decision (but did not require
\u8220\'3ffindings of fact and conclusions of law\u8221\'3f). Although the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
opinion was brief and conclusory, he did \u8220\'3fexplain\u8221\'3f why the
employer prevailed on each theory\u8212\'3fi.e., that the employee did not meet his
burden of proving the employer\rquote s decision to terminate the employment was
discriminatory or retaliatory. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Green v. Ameritech Corp.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2000) 200 F3d 967, 974-976
}}}
(distinguishing
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
, supra); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2012) 668 F3d 655, 666
}}}
\u8212\'3fwhere parties\rquote agreement required
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to issue with award written discussion sufficient to allow limited
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
to enforce or vacate award,
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
writing was adequate (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:420.10
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0677f8d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0677f8d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.1] The contract in dispute contained an integration clause
stating its terms \u8220\'3fmay not be contradicted by evidence of any prior
agreement \u8230\'3f and that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no extrinsic evidence
}
}
whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial or
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding.\u8221\'3f The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his power by making an award based on a term that extrinsic evidence
established was omitted from the contract. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bonshire v. Thompson
}
}
(1997) 52 CA4th 803, 811, 60 CR2d 716, 721
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I067eaf904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I067eaf904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.1a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
A franchise agreement contained a provision requiring the franchisee to give
notice to the franchisor in the event of a breach and an opportunity for franchisor
to cure the breach within 60 days. The notice-and-cure clause was a material term
of the contract. The agreement also included an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause, providing: \u8220\'3fIn no event may the material provisions of this
Agreement \u8230\'3f be modified or changed by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
awarded nearly $500,000 to the franchisee in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of a breach of contract dispute. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not exceed his power by interpreting the agreement to permit equitable excusal
of strict compliance with the notice-and-cure provision, finding that compliance
would have been an idle act. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd
}
}
. (2008) 43 C4th 1179, 1181-1183, 77 CR3d 613, 615-616
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0684ca104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0684ca104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:477.1b]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If your objective is to provide that performance of material conditions will never
be excused, include a clause stating that the par ties expressly agree that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
will have \u8220\'3fno power to \u8216\'3fmodify, change or excuse performance
of\u8217\'3f a material term.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gueyffier v. Ann Summers, Ltd
}
}
., supra, 43 C4th at 1185, 77 CR3d at 618, fn. 3
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.2] A collective bargaining agreement limited
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
authority to overturn faculty tenure denials to decisions \u8220\'3fnot based on a
reasoned
}
judgment
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f University President denied tenure to a professor based on a
determination that the professor\rquote s scholarly productivity was
\u8220\'3fmeager.\u8221\'3f The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
could
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
substitute his own
}
judgment
}
}
}
as to the professor\rquote s productivity and grant tenure: \u8220\'3fThe
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
clearly misperceived the authority granted him to perform a limited deferential
review of the president\rquote s decision.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
California Faculty Ass\rquote n v. Sup.Ct. (Board of Trustees of Calif. State
Univ.)
}
}
(1998) 63 CA4th 935, 951, 75 CR2d 1, 11
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.2a]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
In a tripartite
}
arbitration
}
}
}
under AAA Rules, one
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had a medical issue after the first week of hearings. The panel
}
ordered
}
}
}
the hearings to continue with the ailing
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. Each day, the ailing
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was provided with the transcript, video and exhibits, to avoid a seven-month delay
if the matter had been continued. The panel later deliberated and rendered a
unanimous award. The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
did not exceed their power by conducting the hearing in part with only two of the
three
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
physically present. AAA rules permitted such a procedure (see Rules R-20(b) and L-
3(a), formerly Rules R-19(b) and L-4(a)), as well as California and Nevada law
(both of which were relevant). The panel\rquote s chosen procedure did not violate
the parties\rquote agreement. Moreover, the objecting party did not invoke AAA
Rule R-20(a), formerly Rule R-19(a), providing that an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
office may be declared vacant when an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
is unable to perform the duties. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Ctr., Inc
}
}
. (2012) 203 CA4th 336, 350-354, 136 CR3d 832, 844-847
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:477.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Waiver of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to comply:
}
}
\u8220\'3fA party cannot wait until after an award is made to claim that an issue
expressly presented to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
for decision is beyond his (or her) authority.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
J.C. Gury Co. v. Nippon Carbide Indus. (USA) Inc.
}
}
(2007) 152 CA4th 1300, 1302, 62 CR3d 118, 119
}}}
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06a08f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06a08f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.3a] A sales contract included an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause limiting the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power to make an award that altered any contractual provision. However, the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award determined that a provision disclaiming warranties and excluding damages was
unconscionable and unenforceable. The seller did not contend either before or
during the proceeding that the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause limited the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power to decide the issue. Moreover, during the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, the seller had responded to the buyer\rquote s claim that the provision was
unconscionable.The seller could not argue on appeal that an adverse decision on the
unconscionability issue exceeded the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
J.C. Gury Co. v. Nippon Carbide Indus. (USA) Inc.
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:477.3b] An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause in a labor agreement stated the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
may decide only whether a termination was authorized under the terms of the
agreement. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his power by framing the issue as whether termination was
\u8220\'3fwrongful or proper.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Roadway Package System, Inc. v. Kayser
}
}
(3rd Cir. 2001) 257 F3d 287, 300-302
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06ae4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06ae4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(g) [5:477.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator
}
}
}
selection process not in compliance with parties\rquote agreement:
}
}
An employment agreement prescribed the method for selecting the sole
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. AAA administered the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and controlled the selection process. AAA followed its own procedures, which were
different from those prescribed in the agreement. Employee claimed the award should
be vacated on account of the variance. Both parties lodged objections to aspects of
the selection process, but Employee never objected that AAA was not following the
process prescribed in the agreement. Therefore, any objection to the award was
waived by Employee\rquote s conduct. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brook v. Peak Int\rquote l, Ltd.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2002) 294 F3d 668, 673-674
}}}
; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Parker v. McCaw
}
}
(2005) 125 CA4th 1494, 1505-1507, 1509, 24 CR3d 55, 62-64, 65
}}}
\u8212\'3fportion of award subject to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
before tripartite panel vacated where court consolidated claims before single
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
; and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
PoolRe Ins. Corp. v. Organizational Strategies, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2015) 783 F3d 256, 263-266
}}}
\u8212\'3fTexas-based
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
named himself
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
in violation of parties\rquote reinsurance agreements and did not apply
}
arbitration
}
}
}
rules specified in contract\rquote s forum-selection clause (district court
properly vacated entire award)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06b54ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06b54ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(h) [5:477.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
\u8220\'3farbitrary remaking\u8221\'3f of contract?
}
}
Some courts have held that limited
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
is allowed where a party claims the award goes beyond the terms of the contract.
Under this view, the court must determine whether the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
construction of the contract \u8220\'3fpresents
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
such an egregious mistake
}
}
that it amounts to an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arbitrary remaking
}
}
of the contract between the parties.\u8221\'3f [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Anacapa Oil Corp.)
}
}
(1993) 15 CA4th 576, 590-593, 19 CR2d 295, 305-306
}}}
(emphasis added) (questioned in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
}
}
(1994) 9 C4th 362, 376-377, 36 CR2d 581, 589-590 & fn. 10
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fWe need not decide here whether an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
interpretation of a contract is subject to review for
\u8216\'3firrationality\u8217\'3f or \u8216\'3farbitrariness\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f
because issue involved
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
choice of remedies (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:478
}}}
}
))]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This is a \u8220\'3fnarrow exception\u8221\'3f and the standard \u8220\'3fso strict
that it should discourage all but the most serious claims of abuse.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Anacapa
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Oil Corp.)
}
}
, supra,
}
{\fldrslt
15 CA4th at 594, 19 CR2d at 307
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06c2bd704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06c2bd704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:477.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fambiguous provisions:
}
}
The test is whether the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
interpretation of the contract was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arbitrary
}
}
, not whether it was correct.Thus, where \u8220\'3fthe
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote reading and application of the contract is clearly within the range of
ambiguity, i.e., within the ordinary bounds of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
semantic permissibility
}
}
, there can be no tenable claim that the contract has been arbitrarily
remade.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Oil Corp.)
}
}
, supra,
}
{\fldrslt
15 CA4th at 594, 19 CR2d at 307-308
}}}
(emphasis added);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Paramount Unified School Dist. v. Teachers Ass\rquote n of Paramount
}
}
(1994) 26 CA4th 1371, 1383, 32 CR2d 311, 317-318
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:477.7 - 5:477.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06cc0c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06cc0c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:477.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3feffect of adhesion contract:
}
}
The fact the contract is one of adhesion does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
affect the permissible scope of
}
judicial
}
}
}
}
review
}
}
}
. I.e., the weaker party who is dissatisfied with the award is not entitled to
challenge it on broader or different grounds. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Oil Corp.)
}
}
, supra,
}
{\fldrslt
15 CA4th at 596-598, 19 CR2d at 309-310
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:477.11 - 5:477.14]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(i) [5:477.15]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Procedural restriction\u8212\'3flimiting company to one representative at
}
arbitration
}
}
}
hearing:
}
}
An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
may exceed his or her power by precluding a party from having more than one
independent representative present during the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. The restriction may result in the denial of a fair hearing. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hoso Foods, Inc. v. Columbus Club, Inc.
}
}
(2010) 190 CA4th 881, 888-892, 118 CR3d 594, 600-603
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:393.6
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06da64204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06da64204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(j) [5:478]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Unauthorized remedy:
}
}
An award may be set aside where the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
has no authority to act: \u8220\'3f(C)ourts retain the ultimate authority to
overturn awards as beyond the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers, whether for an unauthorized remedy or decision on an unsubmitted
issue.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1994) 9 C4th 362, 375, 36 CR2d 581, 589
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06df1f104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06df1f104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:478.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remedies available only in court:
}
}
Ordinarily, any relief that could have been
}
ordered
}
}
}
by a trial court or jury is within an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
authority. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But there are some exceptions:
{\pntext }
{\li1800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
cannot appoint a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
receiver
}
}
(
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marsch v. Williams
}
}
(1994) 23 CA4th 238, 245, 28 CR2d 402, 407
}}}
);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
nor can they
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
enforce a
}
judgment
}
}
}
}
confirming an award (
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luster v. Collins
}
}
(1993) 15 CA4th 1338, 1350, 19 CR2d 215, 222
}}}
\u8212\'3finvalidating economic sanctions for future violations of award).
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
These and other similar powers are reserved to the trial court in connection with
enforcement of
}
judgments
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conference Ctr. Bd.
}
}
(1996) 41 CA4th 1551, 1555, 49 CR2d 286, 288
}}}
\u8212\'3famending
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor as alter ego;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jordan-Lyon Productions, Ltd. v. Cineplex Odeon Corp.
}
}
(1994) 29 CA4th 1459, 1467-1468, 35 CR2d 200, 205
}}}
\u8212\'3fimposition of
}
judgment
}
}
}
lien]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06eed6804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06eed6804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:478.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remedies bearing no \u8220\'3frational relationship\u8221\'3f to contract breach:
}
}
An award may be set aside where the remedy granted bears no \u8220\'3frational
relationship\u8221\'3f to the breach of the underlying contract, as expressly or
impliedly found by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06f231e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06f231e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a) [5:478.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fRational relationship\u8221\'3f:
}
}
\u8220\'3fThe award is rationally related to the breach if it is aimed at
compensating for or alleviating the effects of the breach.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I06f7b0204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I06f7b0204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
b) [5:478.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal \u8220\'3fessence\u8221\'3f test:
}
}
Federal courts use a slightly different test, focusing on the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
source
}
}
of the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
chosen remedy: To be legitimate, an award must \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
draw its essence
}
}
\u8221\'3f from the underlying agreement as interpreted by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.
}
}
(1960) 363 US 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 1361
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Timegate Studios, Inc. v. Southpeak Interactive, L.L.C.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2013) 713 F3d 797, 807
}}}
\u8212\'3fperpetual license remedy
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
fashioned for egregious breach of video game publishing agreement drew its essence
from parties\rquote agreement; and see discussion in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
3) [5:478.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fwhere \u8220\'3frational relationship\u8221\'3f exists:
}
}
As long as such relationship exists,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
have
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
broad
}
}
discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Taylor v. Van-Catlin Const.
}
}
(2005) 130 CA4th 1061, 1066, 30 CR3d 690, 693
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I070aea004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I070aea004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
[5:478.6] The potential remedies available to an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not limited
}
}
to those that a court could award on the same claim: \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
(A)n
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
panel may grant equitable relief that a Court could not
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
(emphasis added; internal quotes omitted)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
[5:478.7] Moreover, the remedy granted may confer
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
benefits different
}
}
from those that would have been obtained by a party through full performance of
the contract. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:478.8]
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
found that Intel breached the implied covenant of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
good faith and fair dealing
}
}
in its technology exchange agreement with AMD. To compensate for an
\u8220\'3fimmeasurable amount\u8221\'3f of lost profits and goodwill,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
awarded AMD a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
permanent, royalty-free license
}
}
to use specified Intel technology. That award was \u8220\'3frationally
related\u8221\'3f to the effect of Intel\rquote s breach of implied covenant and
was thus within the scope of the parties\rquote agreement. The license was a
proper form of relief even though it would not have been available in court, and
granted benefits different from those that would have been obtained had the
contract been fully performed. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I071b8bd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I071b8bd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:478.9] Architect and Client agreed to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
\u8220\'3f(a)ny claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or
relating to\u8221\'3f their agreement in accord with AAA Construction
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Rules. The disputes between the parties included a defamation claim. Architect
sought a retraction of allegedly defamatory statements.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
awarded monetary damages against Client and
}
ordered
}
}
}
a written retraction and apology regarding certain statements made by Client to
the historic restoration community. Client sought vacatur, including the retraction
remedy, as exceeding the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power. Although the trial court corrected the award by vacating the retraction
}
order
}
}
}
and confirming the corrected award,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
was authorized to grant any equitable and just remedy that is within the scope of
the parties\rquote agreement, including the retraction relief. While a court might
not have power to compel a party to retract a defamatory statement, the parties may
allow an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to do so. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2011) 194 CA4th 519, 523-526, 528-531, 125 CR3d 83, 87-89, 91-93
}}}
(relying on
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp
}
}
., supra, 9 C4th at 372-376, 388-391, 36 CR2d at 587-589, 597-599
}}}
, and AAA Rule R-45(a))]
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fpublic policy/free speech issues:
}
}
}
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
}
order
}
}
}
, requiring Client to send a retraction letter, was not inherently improper. But
language in the letter apologizing \u8220\'3ffor any misconceptions such statements
may have caused as well as any damage such statements may have done to
(Architect\rquote s) reputation\u8221\'3f went too far. The apology improperly
compelled the expression of opinion that impermissibly infringed on Client\rquote s
right of free speech. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:478.10 - 5:478.14]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
4) [5:478.15]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fremedies excluded by agreement:
}
}
An award may be set aside when the remedy granted is excluded by the agreement. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
O\rquote Flaherty v. Belgum
}
}
(2004) 115 CA4th 1044, 1061, 1063-1064, 9 CR3d 286, 299, 301
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I072b6a504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I072b6a504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:478.16] A law partnership agreement provided that
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fshall not have any power to alter, amend, modify or change any of the
terms of this Agreement nor to grant any remedy which is either prohibited by the
terms of this Agreement \u8230\'3f or not available in a court of law.\u8221\'3f
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
}
ordered
}
}
}
the forfeiture of certain withdrawing partners\rquote capital accounts. The
partnership agreement, however, implicitly excluded that remedy because it called
for the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
return of capital
}
}
even to a wrongfully withdrawing partner. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
O\rquote Flaherty v. Belgum
}
}
}}}
(award vacated)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:478.17]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Parties to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreements who want to limit the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
remedial powers \u8220\'3fwould be well advised\u8221\'3f to include such limits
in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement! [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2005) 130 CA4th 1061, 1066, 30 CR3d 690, 693
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I073ad3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I073ad3a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(k) [5:479]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Remedy not authorized by law:
}
}
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
do \u8220\'3fexceed\u8221\'3f their powers by awarding remedies they are not
authorized by law to award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marsch v. Williams
}
}
(1994) 23 CA4th 238, 248, 28 CR2d 402, 409
}}}
\u8212\'3fno power to appoint receiver;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luster v. Collins
}
}
(1993) 15 CA4th 1338, 1350, 19 CR2d 215, 222
}}}
\u8212\'3fno power to impose monetary sanctions for future violations of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:479.1]
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
exceeded their authority by awarding $88 million in attorney fees from public
funds pursuant to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of a fee dispute between private parties and the State of California arising from
settlement of a class action involving the impact of smog fees. The award was
approximately 13% of the total settlement. The award was vacated in the trial
court, and on appeal it was corrected to reduce the fees to $18,000,000, the
maximum allowed by statute (construing
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000222&cite=CARTS6909&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
Rev. & Tax.C. \u167\'3f 6909(b)
}}}
). Therefore, any sum in excess of that amount violates an express public policy,
namely an unconstitutional gift of public funds. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jordan v. California Department of Motor Vehicles
}
}
(2002) 100 CA4th 431, 450-453, 123 CR2d 122, 137-139
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Caution:
}
}
The concurring opinion in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Jordan
}
}
wryly suggested that in spite of the equity of the decision (limiting what would
have been a grossly disproportionate fee), the overlay of \u8220\'3fpublic
policy\u8221\'3f on an otherwise unequivocal
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement suggests that it is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
risky
}
}
to enter into a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
binding
}
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement with the State
}
}
because politics may undermine finality of the process. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jordan v. California Department of Motor Vehicles
}
}
, supra, 100 CA4th at 457-458, 123 CR2d at 142-143 (J. Sims, concur.opn.)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:480]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fFraud, corruption or other undue means\u8221\'3f as ground to vacate
award:
}
}
An
}
arbitral
}
}
}
award will be vacated if the court finds it was procured by \u8220\'3ffraud,
corruption or other undue means.\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(1)
}}}
;
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(1)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:481]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
By
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
or by party:
}
}
This ground applies either to fraud perpetrated by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
or to fraud by a party. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
70
}
}
(1986) 183 CA3d 1138, 1147, 228 CR 645, 650, fn. 3
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:482]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Extrinsic vs. intrinsic fraud:
}
}
It applies only to extrinsic fraud\u8212\'3fi.e., fraud which has deprived the
party of a fair hearing. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
70
}
}
, supra, 183 CA3d at 1147, 228 CR at 650
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:483] Asserting a damage claim for the first time in a posthearing
brief
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in
}
order
}
}
}
to prevent
}
}
the opposing party from introducing evidence on this issue constitutes
\u8220\'3fextrinsic fraud.\u8221\'3f If the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
considers such evidence, the award may be set aside under this section. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
70
}
}
, supra, 183 CA3d at 1147, 228 CR at 650
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0761bc904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0761bc904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:484] Ex parte contacts between the neutral and one of several party
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
sitting on the panel with the neutral constituted extrinsic fraud, justifying
setting aside the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pacific & Arctic Ry. & Navig. Co. v. United Transp. Union
}
}
(9th Cir. 1991) 952 F2d 1144, 1148-1149
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Maaso v. Signer
}
}
(2012) 203 CA4th 362, 372-375, 136 CR3d 853, 861-863
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f
}
5:393.5
}}}
,
}
5:486
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I076b0b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I076b0b604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:484.1]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
Counsel\rquote s ex parte communication reminding the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
that one issue was still unresolved was not ground to vacate the award where there
was no showing that the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was improperly influenced or actually considered evidence outside the original
proceedings. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v.Tri-Build Develop. Co.
}
}
(1999) 70 CA4th 1470, 1476, 83 CR2d 449, 453
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The court noted, however, that such communications were \u8220\'3finappropriate,
and under different, more egregious circumstances, might require vacation of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v. Tri-Build Develop. Co.
}
}
,
}
{\fldrslt
supra, 70 CA4th at 1478, 83 CR2d at 454
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:485]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffraud in inducement of agreement:
}
}
Fraud in connection with the underlying agreement (fraudulent representations,
etc.) cannot be raised in a petition to vacate the award. Such challenges are for
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
, not the court, to determine;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:113
}}}
}
.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(d) [5:485.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fCorruption\u8221\'3f:
}
}
This term has not been definitively construed.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07845fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07845fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(e) [5:486]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fUndue means\u8221\'3f:
}
}
This term means behavior that is \u8220\'3fimmoral, if not illegal \u8230\'3f
something wrong, according to the standards of morals which the law
enforces.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough
}
}
(9th Cir. 1992) 967 F2d 1401, 1403-1404
}}}
\u8212\'3foffering a meritless defense is not \u8220\'3fundue means\u8221\'3f (if
it were, awards would be regularly overturned);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Maaso v. Signer
}
}
(2012) 203 CA4th 362, 372-375, 136 CR3d 853, 861-863
}}}
(citing text)\u8212\'3fex parte communication between one party
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
while outcome of proceeding was under consideration constituted \u8220\'3fundue
means\u8221\'3f; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
National Cas. Co. v. First State Ins. Group
}
}
(1st Cir. 2005) 430 F3d 492, 499
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3funderhanded or conniving ways of procuring an award that are
similar to corruption or fraud but do not precisely constitute either\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
To vacate an award on this ground, it must be shown that the \u8220\'3fundue
means\u8221\'3f (i) were
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not discoverable
}
}
before the award was made and (ii)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
caused the award
}
}
to be given. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. v. McCollough
}
}
, supra, 967 F2d at 1403-1404
}}}
\u8212\'3fwhere alleged wrongdoing was known at all times, losing party would not
be given \u8220\'3fa second bite at the apple\u8221\'3f; but see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc.
}
}
(2003) 112 CA4th 810, 832, 5 CR3d 442, 461
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3f(A) party, who did not receive a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
hearty
}
}
\u8216\'3ffirst-bite\u8217\'3f could not be precluded from having a
\u8216\'3fsecond bite\u8217\'3f\u8221\'3f (e.g., where attorney has conflict of
interest that substantially impacts
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision). [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
(emphasis added)\u8212\'3fno \u8220\'3fclear and convincing evidence\u8221\'3f of
conflict or substantial impact on panel\rquote s decision]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Other examples of undue means that were known but that should not preclude a party
from having a \u8220\'3fsecond bite\u8221\'3f of the apple to vacate an award
include a party\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
intimidation
}
}
or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
bestowal of favors
}
}
on an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:487]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to disclose required matters:
}
}
Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are required by statute to make certain disclosures in matters in which they are
nominated or appointed. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_7%3a14&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentIte
m&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_7:14" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f7:14 ff.
}}}
,
}
7:62 ff.
}}}
}
);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Benjamin, Weill & Mazer v. Kors
}
}
(2011) 195 CA4th 40, 61, 73, 125 CR3d 469, 486, 496
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:487.15 ff.
}}}
,
}
7:144.3
}}}
}
);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Casden Park La Brea Retail LLC v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc.
}
}
(2008) 162 CA4th 468, 476-478, 75 CR3d 763, 769-771
}}}
(discussing matters that must be disclosed and those that are not required)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The matters disclosed or the failure to comply with the disclosure requirements may
be grounds for disqualification of the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and vacatur of any subsequent award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ovitz v. Schulman
}
}
(2005) 133 CA4th 830, 844-845, 35 CR3d 117, 127-128
}}}
\u8212\'3faward vacated because of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to comply with disclosure requirements;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gray v. Chiu
}
}
(2013) 212 CA4th 1355, 1366, 151 CR3d 791, 798-799
}}}
\u8212\'3ftrial court erred by failing to vacate
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award pursuant to
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(6)
}}}
where
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not disclose fact counsel for prevailing party was member of administering
dispute resolution organization;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mt. Holyoke Homes, L.P. v. Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
}
}
(2013) 219 CA4th 1299, 1310-1315, 162 CR3d 597, 605-608
}}}
\u8212\'3ftrial court erred in denying petition to vacate award where
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
failed to disclose naming of attorney as reference on his r\u233\'3fsum\u233\'3f
and attorney\rquote s law firm was involved in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of legal malpractice action (irrelevant that losing party failed to investigate
and discover r\u233\'3fsum\u233\'3f on Internet)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Also, the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
failure to disqualify himself or herself
}
}
upon receipt of a timely demand (as required by
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
,
}
1281.91
}}}
) is ground to vacate the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(6)
}}}
] (Exception:This does not apply to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of grievances pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.)
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Disclosures may also be required of nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:56
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:487.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Failure to disclose other matters:
}
}
In addition to the
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
requirements, nondisclosure of other matters indicating possible bias may be
ground to vacate an award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co.
}
}
(1968) 393 US 145, 149, 89 S.Ct. 337, 339
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Betz v. Pankow
}
}
(1993) 16 CA4th 919, 922-923, 20 CR2d 834, 835
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:487.1a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3funder FAA:
}
}
Proof of \u8220\'3fevident partiality\u8221\'3f under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10
}}}
is required to vacate an award. But courts are split on whether an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to disclose a conflict is an independent basis for vacating an award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
ANR Coal Co., Inc. v. Cogentrix of North Carolina, Inc.
}
}
(4th Cir. 1999) 173 F3d 493, 499-500
}}}
\u8212\'3fmere nondisclosure not enough for vacatur;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortg. Corp.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2007) 476 F3d 278, 283
}}}
(en banc)\u8212\'3fmere nondisclosure of \u8220\'3ftrivial or insubstantial prior
relationship\u8221\'3f between
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and parties not enough for vacatur; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schmitz v. Zilveti
}
}
(9th Cir. 1994) 20 F3d 1043, 1049
}}}
\u8212\'3faward vacated where
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had no actual knowledge of conflict but did not undertake due diligence by running
conflicts check and disclosing matter to parties;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:492 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07c0f3904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07c0f3904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:487.1b]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
Because the statutory grounds are exclusive (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:463.1
}}}
}
), such matters should probably be treated as \u8220\'3fcorruption, fraud or other
undue means\u8221\'3f within the meaning of
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(1)
}}}
and
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(1)
}}}
, above; or as \u8220\'3fcorruption in any of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(2)
}}}
; or as \u8220\'3fmisconduct by neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f within the meaning of
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(3)
}}}
; or as evident partiality within the meaning of
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(2)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:487.1c - 5:487.1f]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07cefd504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07cefd504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:487_1g_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:487_1g_1}
}
(b) [5:487.1g]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Ethical standards:
}
}
A neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
must comply with Judicial Council Ethics Standards. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.85
}}}
; CRC Ethics Standards for Neutral
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
in Contractual
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
(\u8220\'3fEthics Standards\u8221\'3f);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:15 ff.
}}}
,
}
7:98 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Comment:
}
}
Failure to disclose these conflicts may be ground to vacate an award.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07d5db204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07d5db204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:487.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
vs. nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
:
}
}
Nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
subject to statutory disclosure requirements (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:64
}}}
}
).
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
applies only \u8220\'3fwhen a person is to serve as a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
neutral
}
}
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f; and the statute provides for disqualification only of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
neutral
}
}
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
,
}
1281.91
}}}
(emphasis added);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mahnke v. Sup.Ct. (California Fair Plan Ass\rquote n)
}
}
(2009) 180 CA4th 565, 576-577, 103 CR3d 197, 204
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Similarly, nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are not subject to the Judicial Council Ethics Standards (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a487.1g&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:487.1g" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:487.1g
}}}
}
). [See CRC
}
findType=L&pubNum=1085236&cite=CASTARBETSTD1&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85
ecddb7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
Ethics Standards 1
}}}
,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1085236&cite=CASTARBETSTD2&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85
ecddb7f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
2(a)
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:56.1 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
One court held that disclosures are only required of the neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
because the party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
expected to be biased
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Tate v. Saratoga Sav. & Loan Ass\rquote n
}
}
(1989) 216 CA3d 843, 858, 265 CR 440, 449
}}}
(disapproved on other grounds in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1994) 9 C4th 362, 376-377, 36 CR2d 581, 589-590
}}}
); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment: A
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
party-appointed neutral
}
}
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
is a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
neutral
}
}
for
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
purposes of compliance
}
}
with the Ethics Standards.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a26.1a&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Document
Item&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:26.1a" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:26.1a ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:487.2a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fformer law:
}
}
Former CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9(e) required disqualification (and therefore presumably
disclosures) on any ground specified in
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS170.1&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
CCP \u167\'3f 170.1
}}}
(judicial disqualification), and seemingly applied to neutral and party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
alike. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Michael v. Aetna Life & Cas. Ins. Co.
}
}
(2001) 88 CA4th 925, 934-935, 106 CR2d 240, 246
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 180 CA4th at 576-577, 103 CR3d at 204
}}}
(comparing former CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9(e) with current statute)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07ef56904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07ef56904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:487.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3finsurance appraisal proceedings:
}
}
In insurance appraisal proceedings, however, each of the appraisers is required to
be \u8220\'3fdisinterested.\u8221\'3f Also, the \u8220\'3fdisinterested\u8221\'3f
appraisers select an umpire who also must be \u8220\'3fdisinterested.\u8221\'3f [
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000214&cite=CAINS2071&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
Ins.C. \u167\'3f 2071
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Louise Gardens of Encino Homeowners\rquote Ass\rquote n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exch.,
Inc.
}
}
(2000) 82 CA4th 648, 652, 98 CR2d 378, 380-381
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 180 CA4th at 570, 572-573, 575, 103 CR3d at 199, 200-201, 203 & fn. 2
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:29
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07f6f7b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07f6f7b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a) [5:487.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Higher standard than for
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
:
}
}
The appraisers and umpire are \u8220\'3fheld to a higher standard of impartiality
than are
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
generally.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gebers v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
}
}
(1995) 38 CA4th 1648, 1652, 45 CR2d 725, 727-728
}}}
(internal quotes omitted);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
, supra, 180 CAth at 575,
}
{\fldrslt
103 CR3d at 203
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I07fc27d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I07fc27d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:487.5] An award was set aside because Appraiser designated by Insurer
failed to disclose an ongoing financial relationship with Insurer as an expert
witness in other litigation, creating the \u8220\'3fimpression of possible
bias.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gebers v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co.
}
}
, supra, 38 CA4th at 1652, 45 CR2d at 727-728
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:487.6] Umpire
}
arbitrating
}
}
}
fire loss did not disclose that at the time the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was being conducted, he was doing other business with Appraiser selected by
Insurer. The award was set aside for possible bias. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Figi v. New Hampshire Ins. Co.
}
}
(1980) 108 CA3d 772, 776-778, 166 CR 774, 777-778
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1400 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:487.7 - 5:487.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
3) [5:487.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fprovider rules:
}
}
Disclosures by a party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
are required in AAA commercial
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
. [See AAA Commercial
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Rules and Mediation Procedures, Rule R-18(a); AAA/ABA Code of Ethics for
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
in Commercial Disputes, Canons II, X.B(1)\u8212\'3fall
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, including nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, should make disclosures]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
See further discussion of the AAA/ABA Revised Code of Ethics for
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
in Commercial Disputes at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:26.1 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
4) [5:487.11]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal law:
}
}
Arguably, disclosure requirements are applicable to all
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, including nonneutral and neutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, under federal law.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:56.2
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:487.12 - 5:487.14]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(d) [5:487.15]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
under CAA vs.
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
under MFAA:
}
}
Neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
conducting
}
arbitration
}
}
}
under the California
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act (CAA,
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1280 et seq.
}}}
) must make the disclosures required under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
. In contrast,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
conducting
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
under local bar association rules promulgated pursuant to the Mandatory Fee
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act (MFAA,
}
Bus. & Prof.C. \u167\'3f 6200 et seq.
}}}
) are not required to make the
}
\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
disclosures. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2011) 195 CA4th 40, 60-61, 125 CR3d 469, 485-486
}}}
\u8212\'3fBASF Rules specifically incorporate certain CAA provisions, but not
}
\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
, fns. 9 & 10]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:487.16] Law firm and client entered into an agreement providing, to
the extent permitted by law, for
}
binding
}
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of any fee dispute pursuant to the rules of the Bar Association of San Francisco
(BASF). Although such a provision is unenforceable because the MFAA requires
nonbinding
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:107.6 ff.
}}}
}
), the trial court
}
ordered
}
}
}
}
binding
}
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
in accordance with the BASF rules. The
}
order
}
}
}
confirming the resulting award was reversed because the client was entitled to
protections under the CAA that she was not afforded under the BASF procedure. Such
protections include disclosures from the neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
required by the CAA but not by the MFAA. If
}
\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
had applied, it would have required the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to disclose the nature of his legal practice, including the fact that he was
representing a law firm in a fee dispute with a former client. The client was
prejudiced by the erroneous
}
order
}
}
}
for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
under BASF\rquote s rules, which deprived her of the protections of
}
\u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 195 CA4th at 60-61, 73, 125 CR3d at 485-486, 496
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRP5%3a144.30&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c
85ecddb7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionTyp
e=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:144.30
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I082a8ad04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I082a8ad04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:488]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Neutral
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to honor demand for disqualification:
}
}
A neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
must make certain disclosures, including \u8220\'3fall matters that could cause a
person aware of the facts to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
would be able to be impartial \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.9
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f7:14
}}}
,
}
7:62 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A party may serve a notice of disqualification within 15 calendar days after
service of the disclosure statement. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.91(b)(1)
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
fails to disqualify himself or herself after receipt of a timely-filed notice, the
court \u8220\'3fshall vacate the award \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(6)(B)
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Azteca Const., Inc. v. ADR Consulting, Inc.
}
}
(2004) 121 CA4th 1156, 1168-1169, 18 CR3d 142, 151-152
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see also
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f
}
7:23
}}}
,
}
7:272
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
has no duty to disclose information that comes to his or her attention after
appointment if that information would not have been required to be disclosed
initially had it been known at that time. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP v. Koch
}
}
(2008) 162 CA4th 720, 724-727, 733-735, 75 CR3d 869, 871-873, 878-880
}}}
(abrogated on other grounds in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Haworth v. Sup.Ct. (Ossakow)
}
}
(2010) 50 C4th 372, 382-383, 112 CR3d 853, 860-862 & fn. 6
}}}
)\u8212\'3fno duty to disclose and trial court properly denied petition to vacate
award on ground
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
refused to disqualify himself on receipt of timely demand]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer: See detailed discussion in Ch. 7, Disclosure and Disqualification.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:489]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Actual bias:
}
}
\u8220\'3f(D)ecisions biased by discriminatory considerations of race, ethnicity
or gender are not tolerated by the adjudicatory process whether in the courts or in
alternate forums for dispute resolution.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Betz v. Pankow
}
}
(1993) 16 CA4th 919, 922-923, 20 CR2d 834, 835
}}}
\u8212\'3frecord showed award by two male members of 3-person
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel was improperly influenced by gender bias; see also
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(3)
}}}
\u8212\'3fmisconduct of neutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
as ground to vacate award]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I083efd304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I083efd304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:490]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Burden on party challenging award:
}
}
Whether an award is tainted by such bias is a fact question to be determined by
the court reviewing the award. The burden is on the party claiming bias to
establish facts supporting his or her position. [
}
See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Betz v. Pankow
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:491]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
testimony admissible:
}
}
Declarations by the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
whose decision is being challenged on grounds of bias are admissible evidence.
[See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Betz v. Pankow
}
}
, supra, 16 CA4th at 926-927, 20 CR2d at 838
}}}
\u8212\'3fdeclarations by female member of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel admissible to support charge of gender bias by male
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, and declarations of male
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
admissible to refute charge]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fwitness incompetency:
}
}
The rule that an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
is incompetent to testify to matters occurring at the hearing (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRP5%3a43&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
ddb7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
\u182\'3f5:43
}}}
}
) is subject to exception for matters giving rise to disqualification. [
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000207&cite=CAEVS703.5&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
Ev.C. \u167\'3f 703.5
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I084bce704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I084bce704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(6) [5:492]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fEvident partiality\u8221\'3f:
}
}
Under the FAA, an award may be vacated \u8220\'3f(w)here there was evident
partiality or corruption in the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
.\u8221\'3f [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(2)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I084f29d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I084f29d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:493]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fReasonable impression of partiality\u8221\'3f test:
}
}
The party alleging bias must establish specific facts that create a
\u8220\'3freasonable impression of partiality.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schmitz v. Zilveti
}
}
(9th Cir. 1994) 20 F3d 1043, 1047
}}}
; see
}
cddb7f2f8&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_7903_1348&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cb
lt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_7903_1348" }
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ruhe v. Masimo Corp.
}
}
(CD CA 2014) 14 F.Supp.3d 1342, 1348-1351
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But the test is applied differently depending on whether the challenge is based on
actual bias or nondisclosure. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schmitz v. Zilveti
}
}
, supra, 20 F3d at 1047
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:494]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Actual bias:
}
}
In actual bias cases, the integrity of the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision is directly at issue. In those cases, actual bias must be shown. An
\u8220\'3fappearance of bias\u8221\'3f is insufficient. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schmitz v. Zilveti
}
}
, supra, 20 F3d at 1047
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sheet Metal Wkrs. Int\rquote l Ass\rquote n Local Union No. 420 v. Kinney Air
Conditioning Co.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1985) 756 F2d 742, 746
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ruhe v. Masimo Corp.
}
}
, supra, 14 F.Supp.3d at 1348-1351
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
demonstrated evident partiality undermining integrity of award by deciding
party\rquote s disqualification challenge, rather than allowing determination of
challenge under JAMS procedures, and then imposing punitive damages on party for
making challenge and for other reasonable conduct by counsel]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I085a9b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I085a9b804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:495]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Nondisclosure:
}
}
Federal courts are divided on whether
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
have a duty to investigate and disclose potential conflicts of interest. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Montez v. Prudential Securities, Inc.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2001) 260 F3d 980, 983
}}}
(collecting cases and noting absence of consensus among circuits on meaning of
\u8220\'3fevident partiality\u8221\'3f);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Positive Software Solutions, Inc. v. New Century Mortg. Corp.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2007) 476 F3d 278, 283-284
}}}
(en banc) (collecting cases)]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I085fcba04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I085fcba04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a) [5:495.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Duty to investigate:
}
}
Under one view,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are held to a high standard to investigate and disclose potential conflicts of
interest, in
}
order
}
}
}
to enable the parties to evaluate partiality. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
New Regency Productions, Inc. v. Nippon Herald Films, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2007) 501 F3d 1101, 1107-1109
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3fneutral
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had duty to investigate and disclose possible conflicts from new employment with
film company while
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was ongoing]
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Failure to do so may result in reversal of an award even if the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
lacked personal knowledge of the potential conflict (e.g., unknown adverse
representation by a partner). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schmitz v. Zilveti
}
}
, supra, 20 F3d at 1047-1048
}}}
; but see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Fidelity Fed\rquote l Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2004) 386 F3d 1306, 1308, 1312-1313
}}}
\u8212\'3feven though party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
agreed to act neutrally, appointment placed opponent on constructive notice
regarding
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
potential partiality]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
b) [5:495.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No duty to investigate:
}
}
Other courts hold an award may be vacated for \u8220\'3fevident
partiality\u8221\'3f only when either (i) an actual conflict exists, or (ii) the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
has actual knowledge but fails to disclose information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe a potential conflict exists. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gianelli Money Purchase Plan & Trust v. ADM Investor Servs., Inc.
}
}
(11th Cir. 1998) 146 F3d 1309, 1312
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Al-Harbi v. Citibank, N.A.
}
}
(DC Cir. 1996) 85 F3d 680, 683
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Peoples Security Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(4th Cir. 1993) 991 F2d 141, 146-147
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I086ebfc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I086ebfc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
c) [5:495.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of party\rquote s failure to object before award issues?
}
}
Federal courts are split on whether a party\rquote s failure to object to the
actual or evident partiality of an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
before the award is issued waives the right to challenge the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Fidelity Fed\rquote l Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp
}
}
., supra, 386 F3d at 1313
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3fwaiver doctrine applies when party has constructive
knowledge of potential conflict but fails to timely object; but see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corp
}
}
. (6th Cir. 1989) 879 F2d 1344, 1359
}}}
\u8212\'3fprevailing party may not rely on opponent\rquote s failure to object
unless opponent knew relevant facts when matter was heard]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
d) [5:495.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fwhere facts known to
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
:
}
}
According to the Second Circuit, evident partiality exists when an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
knows of a material relationship with a party and fails to disclose it. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Applied Industrial Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2007) 492 F3d 132, 137
}}}
\u8212\'3freasonable person would have to conclude
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was partial to one party to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
]
\par
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0879bc404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0879bc404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:495.5] In a reinsurance
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, each side selected an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. The party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
selected the neutral umpire.The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
were all certified by ARIAS (a reinsurance organization) and subscribed to its
ethical policy of full disclosure and the obligation to make postappointment
disclosures.The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
made initial and postappointment disclosures to the parties. But after
appointment, one party
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and the umpire did not disclose that they were selected to be
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
in another
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and that a witness in the current
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was also a witness in the other
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. One of the parties to the current
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was a predecessor of a party in the second
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. There were similar issues in the two
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
. The district court erred in finding the nondisclosures to be material and in
vacating the award. The nondisclosures did not constitute \u8220\'3fevident
partiality\u8221\'3f absent any suggestion that an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
participating in two separate
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
with similar issues is therefore likely to be biased in favor of or against any
party. [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co
}
}
. (2nd Cir. 2012) 668 F3d 60, 63-69, 76-78
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trustmark Ins. Co. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
(U.S.A.)
}
}
(7th Cir. 2011) 631 F3d 869, 871, 873
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
not disqualified simply because they obtain relevant knowledge in earlier
}
arbitration
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:495.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Under California law, the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
has the duty to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Failure to do so is a
ground to vacate the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:487
}}}
}
)
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
.
}
}
But it is not always clear whether California or federal law will ultimately be
determined to apply (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:70 ff.
}}}
}
). Therefore, in
}
order
}
}
}
to protect the eventual award from vacatur,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
generally should adopt the more onerous standard in making decisions about ethical
obligations. Counsel obviously have a role in this process. Whenever there is any
doubt whether federal or state procedural law applies, counsel may encourage the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to comply with the more burdensome ethics procedures.
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:495.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:495.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fnonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
conduct:
}
}
When parties have agreed to nonneutral party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, the award should not be vacated \u8220\'3funless the objecting party proves that
the party
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
partiality prejudicially affected the award.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Delta Mine Holding Co. v. AFC Coal Properties, Inc
}
}
. (8th Cir. 2001) 280 F3d 815, 822
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Moreover, a finding of \u8220\'3fevident partiality\u8221\'3f is restricted to
circumstances where the party-appointed
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
conduct is in breach of contractual limitations. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. All American Life Ins. Co.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2002) 307 F3d 617, 622
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fTo the extent that an agreement entitles parties to select interested
(even beholden)
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
,
}
\u167\'3f 10(a)(2)
}}}
has no role to play.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 307 F3d at 620
}}}
(parentheses in original)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:495.9] A party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
involved himself in the preparation of the case by the party, \u8220\'3fbecame the
chief interrogator\u8221\'3f for the party during the hearing, and disclosed the
contents of the neutral
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
draft decision to the party who appointed him. Under the FAA\rquote s standards
(including \u8220\'3fevident partiality,\u8221\'3f \u8220\'3fcorruption\u8221\'3f),
the party-appointed
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
partiality did not warrant vacation of the award. All parties understood the non-
neutral status of the party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
and each party had equal access to its party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and the neutral. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Delta Mine Holding Co. v. AFC Coal Properties, Inc
}
}
., supra, 280 F3d at 818, 821-823
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:495.10] A party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had represented the appointing party in an unrelated matter. But the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
failed to disclose the extent of his (and his firm\rquote s) representation of
that party. Even if the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
had fully disclosed the matter, it would not have required disqualification even
as measured against the stricter standard used to disqualify a federal judge.
Moreover, there was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no
}
}
claim that the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
conduct was in breach of contractual limitations, a prerequisite for vacating the
award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(7th Cir. 2002) 307 F3d 617, 620-622
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08a6bfb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08a6bfb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:495.11]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of provider rules:
}
}
Provider rules may impose
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
disqualification
}
}
requirements on party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
. [See AAA Commercial
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Rules and Mediation Procedures, Rule R-18(a), (b)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08aab7504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08aab7504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:495.12]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fAAA/ABA Code of Ethics:
}
}
In commercial disputes governed by the American
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Association Rules, parties
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
may agree
}
}
in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause or after a dispute arises that the party-appointed
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
shall be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nonneutral
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRAPPD&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb
7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docum
Appendix D, Form 27
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In the absence of an express agreement for nonneutrality, the
\u8220\'3fdefault\u8221\'3f provision of the AAA/ ABA Code of Ethics treats all
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
as neutrals and applies to them all rules applicable to neutral
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, including disclosure obligations and the right of the nonappointing party to
request the withdrawal of the party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [See AAA/ABA Code of Ethics for
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
in Commercial Disputes, Canons II.G, IX & X]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:496 - 5:497]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(7) [5:498]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Failure to determine \u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f issues:
}
}
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
are required to decide all questions submitted that are
\u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f to determine the controversy. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1283.4
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Failure to do so may be ground to vacate the award under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(5)
}}}
(\u8220\'3fother conduct of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
contrary to the provisions of this title\u8221\'3f
}
substantially prejudicing a party). [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Herman Feil, Inc. v. Design Center of Los Angeles
}
}
(1988) 204 CA3d 1406, 1418, 251 CR 895, 901
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08bd06d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08bd06d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:499]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Which issues \u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f:
}
}
It is for the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to determine which issues are actually \u8220\'3fnecessary\u8221\'3f to the
ultimate decision. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Morris v. Zuckerman
}
}
(1968) 69 C2d 686, 690, 72 CR 880, 883
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08c67cb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08c67cb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:500]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Presumption that all issues decided:
}
}
A party challenging an award on this ground bears a \u8220\'3fheavy
burden\u8221\'3f because it is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
presumed
}
}
that all issues submitted
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
have
}
}
been decided. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rodrigues v. Keller
}
}
(1980) 113 CA3d 838, 841, 170 CR 349, 351
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:501]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Monetary award as determinative:
}
}
To overcome such presumption, the party challenging the award must show its claim
was
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
expressly
}
}
raised and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
decided by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. But that is difficult to do because findings are usually not required (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:419
}}}
}
), and a monetary award in favor of one party against the other settles the entire
controversy. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rodrigues v. Keller
}
}
, supra, 113 CA3d at 841, 170 CR at 351
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Indeed, \u8220\'3f(a) decision simply that one of the parties should pay the other
a sum of money is sufficiently determinative of all items embraced in the
submission.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sapp v. Barenfeld
}
}
(1949) 34 C2d 515, 522-523, 212 P2d 233, 239
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(d) [5:501.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fmake-whole\u8221\'3f awards:
}
}
An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
may
}
order
}
}
}
that an aggrieved claimant (e.g., employee) \u8220\'3fbe made whole\u8221\'3f as a
result of the opposing party\rquote s conduct. When an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award provides that a party should be \u8220\'3fmade whole,\u8221\'3f without
specifying the appropriate nature of the make-whole remedy, the award cannot be
enforced. The court must remand the award to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
for clarification of the remedy. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2009) 170 CA4th 83, 86, 87 CR3d 764, 767
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08dac8004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08dac8004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:501.2] In an employment
}
arbitration
}
}
}
,
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
found that Employer had violated its own personnel policies and
}
ordered
}
}
}
that Employee be \u8220\'3fmade whole\u8221\'3f without specifying what that
meant. When the parties were unable to agree on a remedy, Employee sought
confirmation of the award, and Employer sought vacatur. Although the trial court
denied the motion to vacate and confirmed the award, the award was unenforceable in
that form. The matter must be returned to
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
for determination of the appropriate nature of the \u8220\'3fmake-whole\u8221\'3f
remedy. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 170 CA4th at 86, 93-94, 87 CR3d at 767, 772-773
}}}
(
}
orders
}
}
}
denying motion to vacate and confirming award as written affirmed and matter
remanded)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08e32c704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08e32c704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(8) [5:502]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Refusal to grant continuance or hear evidence:
}
}
Another ground for vacating an award is \u8220\'3f(t)he rights of the parties were
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
substantially prejudiced
}
}
by the refusal of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the
refusal of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
to hear evidence material to the controversy \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(5)
}}}
(emphasis added);
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(3)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
a \u8220\'3fback door\u8221\'3f to challenge the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
legal theory as to what evidence is \u8220\'3fmaterial.\u8221\'3f Rather, it is a
safety valve that allows a court to intercede when an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
has prevented a party from
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
fairly presenting
}
}
its case. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1993) 18 CA4th 427, 438-439, 22 CR2d 376, 383
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Burlage v. Sup.Ct. (Spencer)
}
}
(2009) 178 CA4th 524, 529, 100 CR3d 531, 535
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08ec54304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08ec54304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:503]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Substantial prejudice:
}
}
To vacate an award on this ground, the moving party must show his or her rights
were
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
substantially
}
}
prejudiced by the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
erroneous refusal to postpone the hearing or hear evidence. (E.g., key evidence
could have been obtained if continuance granted.) [
}
See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Blatt v. Farley
}
}
(1990) 226 CA3d 621, 626, 276 CR 612, 615
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F3d 1167, 1171-1172, 1174
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fshowing of prejudice is a prerequisite to relief based on an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel\rquote s evidentiary rulings\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
It is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
enough to show simply that the evidence excluded was \u8220\'3fmaterial.\u8221\'3f
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fIf any
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
reasonable basis
}
}
exists for the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote decision not to postpone a hearing,\u8221\'3f the refusal to postpone will
not result in a vacation of the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DVC-JPC Investors v. Gershman
}
}
(8th Cir. 1993) 5 F3d 1172, 1174
}}}
(emphasis added); see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
El Dorado School Dist. No. 15 v. Continental Cas. Co.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2001) 247 F3d 843, 847-848
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08fa0fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08fa0fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
\par
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
(b) Application
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I08fb6f604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I08fb6f604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.1] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
denied a party\rquote s motion for a continuance of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
hearing without giving reasons for the denial. The party requesting the
continuance did not appear at the hearing, resulting in an award against that
party. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
was not guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing because there
were a number of possible reasonable explanations for the denial (e.g., parties had
expended considerable time, effort and money based on the hearing date,
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
own schedule, insufficient showing of reasons for postponement, etc.). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
El Dorado School Dist. No. 15 v. Continental Cas. Co.
}
}
(8th Cir. 2001) 247 F3d 843, 847-848
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.2] In a NASD
}
arbitration
}
}
}
,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
did not abuse their discretion in denying a customer\rquote s request for a
continuance of the hearing of its claims against a securities broker-dealer for
alleged unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices. The continuance request
came more than three years after the customer first initiated
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, more than a year beyond the original
}
arbitration
}
}
}
date, after the customer had refused to appear at the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
hearing, and after the customer had twice brought legal actions against the
broker-dealer and twice been
}
ordered
}
}
}
to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
the dispute. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
SWAB Fin\rquote l v. E*Trade Secur.
}
}
(2007) 150 CA4th 1181, 1185, 1198-1199, 58 CR3d 904, 906, 917-918
}}}
(
}
order
}
}
}
vacating award reversed)]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0907cb704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0907cb704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.3] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
did not deny a party the opportunity to oppose the claimant\rquote s right to
compensation based on quasi-contract or estoppel. In fact, the opposing party made
a \u8220\'3fminor reference\u8221\'3f to the quasi-contract theory in its opening
statement and in a
}
summary
}
}
}
}
judgment
}
}
}
letter. The entitlement to compensation was implicitly intertwined in the quasi-
contract theory. The claimant submitted the issue of commissions to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
without the opponent\rquote s objection. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(9th Cir. 2006) 442 F3d 727, 734 & fn. 6
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:475.3
}}}
)
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I090ed0504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I090ed0504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.3a] Seller failed to disclose to Buyers that her home encroached
on neighboring country club property. After escrow closed, the title company paid
the country club almost $11,000 on behalf of Buyers for a lot-line adjustment,
giving Buyers title to the encroachment. Buyers sued Seller for damages for
diminution of value of the property, and the parties agreed to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
excluded Seller\rquote s evidence of the postclosing lot-line adjustment (probably
on the theory that damages were fixed on the date escrow closed). The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
awarded Buyers substantial compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees,
but the trial court properly vacated the award. The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
exclusion of evidence substantially prevented Seller from contesting the amount of
damages.
}
The court rejected Buyers\rquote argument that it was essentially reviewing the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
legal determination regarding when damages were fixed (an unreviewable error of
law). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Burlage v. Sup.Ct. (Spencer)
}
}
(2009) 178 CA4th 524, 529-532, 100 CR3d 531, 535-537
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.3b]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
In a reinsurance contract dispute,
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
did not refuse to hear material evidence as would permit vacatur under the FAA
where they held an ex parte meeting with their retained workers\rquote
compensation experts.
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
held the meeting after listening to and considering the parties\rquote evidence.
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
told the parties they were unable to reach a decision and that they would retain
the experts. The parties discussed what review process to use, and
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
allowed the parties to review the experts\rquote written conclusions, submit
briefing, and question the experts about their qualifications and conclusions.
Moreover, there was no prejudice to the reinsurer by the process
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
selected. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F3d 1167, 1171-1172, 1173-1176
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I091f4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I091f4b104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(9) [5:503.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
rulings preventing discovery:
}
}
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
are called on to regulate the exchange of information between the parties. Such
determinations do not provide a basis for vacatur of an award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Prestige Ford v. Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc.
}
}
(5th Cir. 2003) 324 F3d 391, 394-395
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote refusal to compel production of certain financial records did not support
vacatur;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2002) 278 F3d 621, 624-625
}}}
\u8212\'3frefusal to permit discovery of insurer\rquote s spreadsheets did not
require vacatur where ruling did not make proceeding fundamentally unfair;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
National Cas. Co. v. First State Ins. Group
}
}
(1st Cir. 2005) 430 F3d 492, 497-498
}}}
\u8212\'3frefusal to compel document production was not ground for vacatur where
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
drew negative inference from party\rquote s noncompliance with discovery
}
order
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(10) [5:503.4a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Prejudicial misconduct/misbehavior:
}
}
An award may be vacated where \u8220\'3f(t)he rights of the parties were
substantially prejudiced \u8230\'3f by other conduct of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
contrary to the provisions of (
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1280 et seq.
}}}
).\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(5)
}}}
(parentheses added);
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(3)
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fany other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have
been prejudiced\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:503.4b]
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare:
}
}
In a reinsurance contract dispute,
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote ex parte meeting with their retained workers\rquote compensation experts
was not \u8220\'3fmisbehavior\u8221\'3f to the reinsurers\rquote prejudice that
would permit vacatur of the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(3)
}}}
. The parties agreed to allow
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
to adopt procedures to the extent issues were not addressed by agreed-upon
protocols.
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
retained experts when they reached a stalemate (a situation not addressed by the
protocols).
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
advised the parties of the stalemate, the parties discussed what review process to
use, and
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
allowed the parties to review the experts\rquote written conclusions, submit
briefing, and question the experts about their qualifications and as to their
findings but not as to the contents of the experts\rquote ex parte communications
with the
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
. (9th Cir. 2010) 591 F3d 1167, 1171-1172, 1176
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(11) [5:503.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Award not \u8220\'3fmutual, final and definite\u8221\'3f as ground for vacating:
}
}
An award can be set aside where the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
so \u8220\'3fimperfectly executed\u8221\'3f their powers that there is no
\u8220\'3fmutual, final and definite award\u8221\'3f on the dispute submitted. [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 10(a)(4)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09a20fa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09a20fa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:503.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fFinal\u8221\'3f defined:
}
}
An award is \u8220\'3ffinal\u8221\'3f for confirmation purposes if it
\u8220\'3fresolves all issues submitted to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, and determines each issue fully so that no further litigation is necessary to
finalize the obligations of the parties.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rocket Jewelry Box, Inc. v. Noble Gift Packaging, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1998) 157 F3d 174, 176
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
IDS Life Ins. Co. v. Royal Alliance Assocs., Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2001) 266 F3d 645, 650
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, some courts deem an award final if it resolves a separate claim
or the liability of a party even if other claims or parties remain in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hart Surgical, Inc. v. Ultracision, Inc.
}
}
(1st Cir. 2001) 244 F3d 231, 233-234
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Publicis Communication v.True North Communications, Inc.
}
}
(7th Cir. 2000) 206 F3d 725, 729
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 266 F3d at 650
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
An award is final when the \u8220\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
thinks he\rquote s through with the case, then (the) award is final and
appealable.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Smart v. International Broth. of Electrical Workers, Local 702
}
}
(7th Cir. 2002) 315 F3d 721, 725
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09ae44a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09ae44a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:503.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fMutual\u8221\'3f defined:
}
}
Likewise, an award is \u8220\'3fmutual\u8221\'3f if it resolves the
\u8220\'3fentire dispute (to the extent
}
arbitrable
}
}
}
)\u8221\'3f that has been submitted to the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 266 F3d at 650
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09b326a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09b326a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:503.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fDefinite\u8221\'3f defined:
}
}
An award is \u8220\'3fdefinite\u8221\'3f if it is \u8220\'3fsufficiently clear and
specific to be enforced should it be confirmed \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 266 F3d at 650
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09bac7c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09bac7c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
c. [5:504]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Grounds to correct award:
}
}
The court may modify or \u8220\'3fcorrect\u8221\'3f an award on any of the
following grounds:
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
\u8220\'3fEvident miscalculation\u8221\'3f of amounts or \u8220\'3fevident
mistake\u8221\'3f in description of any person, thing or property referred to in
the award; or
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Defects in the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
form
}
}
of the award that do not affect the merits of the controversy (e.g., property
descriptions omitted; damage amounts itemized but not totalled, etc.); or
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fexceeded their powers but the award can be corrected without affecting
the merits of the decision \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f (e.g., they decided claims not
submitted to them that are clearly severable). [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.6
}}}
; see
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 11
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09c3ef804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09c3ef804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:505]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fExceeding
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers\u8221\'3f as ground for correction:
}
}
An award that exceeds the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
powers may either be vacated or corrected by the court. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1286.2(a)(4)
}}}
,
}
1286.6(b)
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baldwin Co. v. Rainey Construction Co., Inc.
}
}
(1991) 229 CA3d 1053, 1057, 280 CR 499, 501
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Taylor v.Van-Catlin Const.
}
}
(2005) 130 CA4th 1061, 1065-1066, 30 CR3d 690, 692-693
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
For example:
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09cb42804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09cb42804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.1] The parties\rquote agreement provided that the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award would be issued without a written opinion.The
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his powers by stating the reasons for the award. But the award could be
corrected by striking the surplusage so that the award would state only the amount
due. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Jessel)
}
}
(2006) 142 CA4th 356, 362-363, 48 CR3d 266, 270-271
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.2] An award made against someone who is not a party to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceedings may be corrected by deleting the award against the nonparty, while
confirming it as against those who were parties. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ikerd v. Warren T. Merrill & Sons
}
}
(1992) 9 CA4th 1833, 1844, 12 CR2d 398, 404
}}}
\u8212\'3fcorrection of award made against corporation and its sole shareholder who
was never made party to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:505.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09d8b0004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09d8b0004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.4] Where
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
exceeded their authority by appointing a receiver, the trial court should consider
appointing a receiver as authorized by
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1281.8(b)
}}}
. Doing so would \u8220\'3feffect only a correction of the Panel\rquote s
award.\u8221\'3f If the court declines to appoint a receiver, it \u8220\'3fmust
then determine whether the appointment of a receiver by the Panel can be deleted
from the award without affecting the merits of the Panel\rquote s
decision.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marsch v. Williams
}
}
(1994) 23 CA4th 238, 249, 28 CR2d 402, 409
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09dfdbf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09dfdbf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.5] Where an agreement provided that the \u8220\'3fprevailing
party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs,\u8221\'3f and
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
found
}
}
a \u8220\'3fprevailing party,\u8221\'3f
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
had
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no
}
}
authority to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
deny
}
}
attorney fees. The award was subject to correction by the court to include a fee
award. But the court had
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
no
}
}
power to determine the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
amount
}
}
of fees to be awarded; that issue had to be remanded to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
for determination. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DiMarco v. Chaney
}
}
(1995) 31 CA4th 1809, 1816, 37 CR2d 558, 561
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:431.1 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09e9c7004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09e9c7004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.6] A previously issued final award may be corrected to include an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
inadvertently omitted ruling
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v. Tri-Build Develop. Co.
}
}
(1999) 70 CA4th 1470, 1476-1478, 83 CR2d 449, 453-454
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Century City Med. Plaza v. Sperling, Isaacs & Eisenberg
}
}
(2001) 86 CA4th 865, 877, 881, 103 CR2d 605, 614, 617
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and discussion at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:439.6 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09f2eec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09f2eec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.7] An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause in an employment agreement was silent on the allocation of costs but
incorporated the AAA rules. Employer terminated Employee, and the parties
}
arbitrated
}
}
}
their dispute. The
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award required the parties to share the expenses of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
equally. Although the division of fees violated
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Armendariz
}
}
requirements (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:155.9
}}}
}
), the trial court had authority to correct the award rather than vacating it
entirely. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jones v. Humanscale Corp.
}
}
(2005) 130 CA4th 401, 405, 411-412, 29 CR3d 881, 884-885, 889-890
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:505.8 - 5:505.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I09fc8bb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I09fc8bb04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:505.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fnot affecting merits\u8221\'3f:
}
}
The court has no power to modify or correct an award in a manner affecting the
merits of the controversy. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.6
}}}
;
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 11
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.11] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his powers in awarding punitive damages to nonparties. The award had to
be vacated in its entirety; it could
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
be \u8220\'3fcorrected\u8221\'3f by severing the award to nonparties \u8230\'3f
because that would clearly affect the merits of the controversy by
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
increasing
}
}
the award to the prevailing party. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
NCR Corp. v. Sac-Co., Inc.
}
}
(6th Cir. 1995) 43 F3d 1076, 1081
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:505.12] An
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded his powers by modifying a \u8220\'3fFinal Award\u8221\'3f to award
attorney fees in a \u8220\'3fRevised Final Award\u8221\'3f where fees were denied
on the merits when the Final Award issued. The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
denial of fees in the Final Award was based on substantive determinations of law
and fact regarding submitted issues. Neither JAMS Rule 24(c) (authorizing the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to provide remedies guided by principles of justice and equity) nor Rule 24(j)
(permitting the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to make \u8220\'3fcomputational, typographical or other similar error in an
Award \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f) expands the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
power beyond
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1284
}}}
limits. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2014) 230 CA4th 1, 17-18, 21, 178 CR3d 322, 335-336, 338
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:505.13 - 5:505.14]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a0b7fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a0b7fd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:505.15]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3fcourt prohibited from substituting its
}
judgment
}
}
}
for
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
in determining scope of powers:
}
}
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
do
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
exceed their powers by rendering an erroneous decision on an issue as long as the
issue was within the scope of the controversy submitted for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2005) 130 CA4th 1061, 1065-1066, 30 CR3d 690, 693
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt is prohibited from vacating or correcting award merely because it
disagrees with
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
choice of remedy]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:505.16]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3f
}
CCP \u167\'3f 998
}}}
costs or interest not requested from
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
:
}
}
A court may not correct an award to include costs or interest that have not first
been requested from the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Maaso v. Signer
}
}
(2012) 203 CA4th 362, 378, 136 CR3d 853, 866
}}}
\u8212\'3fon motion to confirm (or correct)
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award, court may not award
}
CCP \u167\'3f 998
}}}
costs that have not first been requested from
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
d. [5:506]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Time limit:
}
}
A petition to vacate or correct an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award must be served and filed with the court no later than 100 days after a
signed copy of the award is served on the petitioner. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1288
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Abers v. Rohrs
}
}
(2013) 217 CA4th 1199, 1205-1208, 159 CR3d 414, 418-420
}}}
\u8212\'3fpetition to vacate award dismissed for failure to serve within 100 days
where plaintiffs attempted service by mail on counsel who was not authorized to
accept service for defendants (requirements for proper service of petition in new
action under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1290.4
}}}
were not met)]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The same time limit also applies to an amendment of the award to include a ruling
inadvertently omitted in the original award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Century City Med. Plaza v. Sperling, Isaacs & Eisenberg
}
}
(2001) 86 CA4th 865, 881, 103 CR2d 605, 617, fn. 25
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
Under federal law, a petition may be filed within three months after the award
is \u8220\'3ffiled or delivered.\u8221\'3f [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 12
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare\u8212\'3fprovider rules may provide otherwise:
}
}
However, where provider rules define \u8220\'3fdelivery\u8221\'3f as the date of
mailing, the three-month time period for challenging the award runs from the
earlier mailing date, rather than the later date of receipt. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Webster v. A.T. Kearney, Inc
}
}
. (7th Cir. 2007) 507 F3d 568, 573
}}}
(dealing with AAA\rquote s National Rules for Resolution of Employment Disputes)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:507]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Earlier if raised in response to petition to confirm:
}
}
If a petition to confirm the award is filed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
within the 100-day period
}
}
, any response seeking to vacate or correct the award must be filed within the
period for responses generally (10 days after service of the petition;
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1290.6
}}}
). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DeMello v. Souza
}
}
(1973) 36 CA3d 79, 83, 111 CR 274, 277
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Oaktree Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Bernard
}
}
(2010) 182 CA4th 60, 66-68, 106 CR3d 16, 21-22
}}}
(citing text)\u8212\'3f10-day period under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1290.6
}}}
extended 2 days for overnight mail delivery (
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1013(c)
}}}
) and by suspension of running of period while matter was removed to federal court
until remand]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:507.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of response to untimely petition to confirm award:
}
}
If a petition to confirm an award is filed after the 100-day time limit, a
response to the petition that asserts grounds to vacate the award must be
disregarded. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Eternity Investments, Inc. v. Brown
}
}
(2007) 151 CA4th 739, 742, 746, 60 CR3d 134, 135, 138-139
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:508]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Tolling:
}
}
Under California law, matters making it
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
impossible
}
}
or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
impracticable
}
}
to proceed with the petition toll the 100-day deadline (e.g., pendency of lawsuit
to enjoin further proceedings). [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shepherd v. Greene
}
}
(1986) 185 CA3d 989, 993, 230 CR 233, 235, fn. 9
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a374ac04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a374ac04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:508.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
Under federal law, the equitable tolling doctrine may suspend the running of the
three-month jurisdictional limit on filing a motion to vacate an award under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 12
}}}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pfannenstiel v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
}
}
(10th Cir. 2007) 477 F3d 1155, 1158
}}}
\u8212\'3fdoctrine did not apply because claimant knew key facts providing basis
for motion one month before deadline;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Webster v. A.T. Kearney, Inc
}
}
., supra, 507 F3d at 571-572\u8212\'3f3
}}}
-month time limit for challenging award ceases to run when notice of motion to
vacate is served on opposing party or counsel (filing date not determinative)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a3ec4d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a3ec4d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:509]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Extended by application to
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to correct award:
}
}
Where the error is one of \u8220\'3fform\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fevident
miscalculation,\u8221\'3f application for correction should be made initially to
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
(
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1284
}}}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:438
}}}
}
).
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No petition for correction can be made to the court while such application is
pending before the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. The deadline for the petition is extended accordingly; i.e., the 100-day period
is measured from the date the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
serves a corrected award or the request for correction is denied. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1288.6
}}}
-
}
1288.8
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:510]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Motion for relief from default (
}
CCP \u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
)?
}
}
Courts are split on whether a party who has a reasonable excuse for failing to
petition to vacate or correct the award within the 100-day deadline may seek relief
under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
:
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:510.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
View that relief available:
}
}
Some courts have stated that a party with a reasonable excuse for failing to
comply with the
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1288
}}}
deadline may move for
}
CCP \u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
relief. The motion must be filed within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding
six months after the award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DeMello v. Souza
}
}
, supra, 36 CA3d at 84, 111 CR at 278
}}}
(dictum)\u8212\'3f
}
\u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
relief unavailable because application was untimely; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Elden v. Sup.Ct. (Elden)
}
}
(1997) 53 CA4th 1497, 1511-1512, 62 CR2d 322, 330
}}}
(same); and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a4fb4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a4fb4c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:510.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Contra view:
}
}
On the other hand, at least one court has held that
}
\u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
relief is unavailable because the 100-day deadline in
}
\u167\'3f 1288
}}}
is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
jurisdictional
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Abers v. Rohrs
}
}
(2013) 217 CA4th 1199, 1210-1212, 159 CR3d 414, 422-424
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3fcases stating
}
\u167\'3f 473
}}}
relief is available are inconsistent with holding in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Maynard v. Brandon
}
}
(2005) 36 C4th 364, 372, 30 CR3d 558, 562
}}}
, that
}
\u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
\u8220\'3fdoes not offer relief from mandatory deadlines deemed jurisdictional in
nature\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(c) [5:510.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
The view in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Abers
}
}
, supra, seems correct. Cases stating that
}
\u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
relief is available have done so without analysis. Moreover, both
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
DeMello
}
}
and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Elden
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:510.1
}}}
}
) were decided before the Supreme Court\rquote s decision in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Maynard
}
}
, and the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Eternity
}
}
opinion seems to have overlooked
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Maynard
}
}
on this point.
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
}
CCP \u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
is discussed in detail in Weil & Brown et al.,
}
findType=Y&pubNum=0103977&cite=CACIVPCH.5&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
db7f2f8&refType=TS&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 5
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(6) [5:510.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Motion for relief under court\rquote s equitable power:
}
}
Even when
}
CCP \u167\'3f 473(b)
}}}
is inapplicable, a court may relieve a party who failed to timely file and serve a
petition to vacate or correct the award under its inherent equitable power. An
aggrieved party may raise this ground when the opponent\rquote s fraud or the
party\rquote s own mistake prevented a fair hearing of the claim. But the fraud or
mistake must be extrinsic, and there must be diligence in seeking relief after
discovery of the facts. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
DeMello v. Souza
}
}
, supra, 36 CA3d at 84-86, 111 CR at 278-279
}}}
(dictum)\u8212\'3frelief denied because no showing of extrinsic mistake and
diligence; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
(citing text); see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Abers v. Rohrs
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3ftrial court not required to invoke equitable power to deem petition to
vacate award to have been filed in separate declaratory relief action so that
failure to timely serve process would not require dismissal where petitioners made
strategic decision to file petition as separate proceeding]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
The court\rquote s inherent power to set aside a
}
judgment
}
}
}
on the ground of
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
extrinsic
}
}
fraud or mistake is discussed in detail in Weil & Brown et al.,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 5
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a6a41a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a6a41a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(7) [5:510.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of raising grounds to vacate or correct award for first time on appeal:
}
}
The grounds to vacate or correct an award
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
cannot
}
}
be raised for the first time on appeal from a
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Knass v. Blue Cross of Calif.
}
}
(1991) 228 CA3d 390, 394, 279 CR 124, 125
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Inc.
}
}
(2000) 82 CA4th 648, 659, 98 CR2d 378, 385-386
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a6f71c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a6f71c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:510.6] Over 14 months after an appraisal award resolved a dispute
regarding the amount of earthquake loss, Insured petitioned to confirm the award
for the purpose of converting it into an appealable
}
judgment
}
}
}
and then attacking the award on the ground the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
should have disqualified himself. However, Insured could not by this tactic avoid
the consequences of its failure to move to vacate within the 100-day period. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Inc.
}
}
, supra, 82 CA4th at 659, 98 CR2d at 385-386
}}}
\u8212\'3fclaimed error waived]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:511]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you represent the winning party in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
wait until after
}
}
the 100-day period before petitioning to confirm the award. Unless the losing
party files in the interim, the delay may cut off any challenge to the award! [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2007) 151 CA4th 739, 745-746, 60 CR3d 134, 138
}}}
(citing text)] (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
But see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f
}
5:510
}}}
to
}
5:510.1
}}}
.
}
}
)
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a7c1bf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a7c1bf04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(8) [5:512]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjurisdictional challenges still available:
}
}
The failure to petition to vacate or correct the award does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
affect a party\rquote s right to challenge the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
power
}
}
to make the award (e.g., whether the dispute was
}
arbitrable
}
}
}
). [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Firefighters of Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles
}
}
(1991) 231 CA3d 1576, 1581-1582, 283 CR 8, 11
}}}
\u8212\'3fappellant may challenge
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
authority to make award despite failure to challenge correctness of award in trial
court]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a825d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a825d804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(9) [5:512.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of minor\rquote s incapacity to contract:
}
}
A minor may be entitled not only to disaffirm a contract containing an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause but also to disaffirm the award itself, even after the 100-day deadline for
moving to vacate the award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Berg v. Traylor
}
}
(2007) 148 CA4th 809, 817, 56 CR3d 140, 145-146
}}}
\u8212\'3fminority status, combined with no appointment of guardian ad litem,
entitled child to disaffirm
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award after deadline]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a88ed304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a88ed304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
\par
{\li400 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
e. Procedural matters
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a89fea04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a89fea04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:513]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Subject matter jurisdiction:
}
}
In California, petitions to vacate or correct an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award should be filed in whichever court would have jurisdiction in an action
involving the dispute. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1292.2
}}}
] (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Federal
}
}
subject matter jurisdiction requirements are discussed at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:62 ff.
}}}
}
)
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:513.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u8220\'3fLimited civil cases\u8221\'3f:
}
}
Where the amount in controversy or value of the property does not exceed $25,000,
the petition is filed in superior court as a \u8220\'3flimited civil
case.\u8221\'3f (Exception: Uninsured motorist
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceedings do not qualify as \u8220\'3flimited civil cases,\u8221\'3f regardless
of the amount involved.) [
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000201&cite=CACPS86&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb7
f2f8&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docume
ntItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
CCP \u167\'3f 86(a)(10)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
Jurisdiction in \u8220\'3flimited\u8221\'3f and \u8220\'3funlimited\u8221\'3f
civil cases is discussed in greater detail in Weil & Brown et al.,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 3
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:514]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Venue:
}
}
Under California law, a petition to vacate or correct an award must be filed in
the county where the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was held. If the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was not held exclusively in a county or was held out of state, proper venue is
either the county where the underlying agreement was made or was to be performed;
or, if the agreement was made outside California and no county in California is
specified for performance, the county where any party resides or has a place of
business; or otherwise, in any county within
}
California. [CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1292
}}}
,
}
1292.2
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0a9a79604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0a9a79604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:514.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal venue:
}
}
Under federal law, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, venue for modifying,
vacating or correcting an award lies in the district where the award was rendered.
[
}
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 10
}}}
,
}
11
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
These provisions are permissive. A petition may be filed where the award was made
or in any district proper under the general venue statute (e.g., where defendant
resides, even if the award was made in another state). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Const. Co
}
}
. (2000) 529 US 193, 195, 120 S.Ct. 1331, 1334
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Textile Unlimited, Inc. v. A..BMH & Co., Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2001) 240 F3d 781, 784
}}}
\u8212\'3fapplying
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cortez
}
}
to suit to enjoin
}
arbitration
}
}
}
] (The same rule applies for a petition to confirm an award;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a535.6a&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:535.6a" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:535.6a
}}}
.
}
}
)
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
For a discussion of venue to confirm an award,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:535.5 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0aa74aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0aa74aa04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:515]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Petition:
}
}
A petition to vacate or correct an award must set forth the following:
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The substance of the agreement to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
(a copy of the agreement should be attached and incorporated by reference unless
the petitioner denies the existence of the agreement);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The names of the
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
The award (a copy of the award and the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
written opinion, if any, should be attached); [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1285.4
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Grounds for relief. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1285.8
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FORMS
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
PETITION TO CONFIRM, CORRECT, OR VACATE CONTRACTUAL
}
ARBITRATION
}
}
}
AWARD,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRForm118.1&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85
ecddb7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
Form 118.1
}}}
}
(Judicial Council optional form).
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
PETITION TO CORRECT AWARD AND TO CONFIRM AWARD AS CORRECTED,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRForm122&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ec
Form 122
}}}
.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ab4b8204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ab4b8204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:516]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Supporting proof:
}
}
Where the petition alleges facts not shown on the face of the documents, competent
proof is required; e.g., declarations setting forth facts establishing the grounds
relied upon.
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ab68ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ab68ce04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:517]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Admissibility of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
declaration:
}
}
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote declarations are
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
inadmissible
}
}
to explain the reasons for the award or the merits of the controversy. [
}
Ev.C. \u167\'3f 703.5
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ng v. Sup.Ct. (People)
}
}
(1997) 52 CA4th 1010, 1020, 61 CR2d 49, 55
}}}
(disapproved on another ground in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Crule v. Sup.Ct. (Gleason)
}
}
(2001) 24 C4th 1057, 1069, 103 CR2d 751, 759-760 & fn. 6
}}}
)\u8212\'3fparties
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
cannot consent
}
}
to judicial officer\rquote s testimony: \u8220\'3fThe duty of impartiality and
neutrality seals their lips, dries the ink in their pens and denies them access to
their word processors; they may not set the record straight \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trabuco Highlands Community Ass\rquote n v. Head
}
}
(2002) 96 CA4th 1183, 1191, 117 CR2d 842, 847
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
letter to court stating
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was
}
binding
}
}
}
was inadmissible under
}
Ev.C. \u167\'3f 703.5
}}}
; but see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
A.M. Classic Const., Inc. v.Tri-Build Develop. Co.
}
}
(1999) 70 CA4th 1470, 1473, 83 CR2d 449, 451
}}}
\u8212\'3faccepting
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
declaration explaining reason for amending award]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But such declarations may be received to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
support or rebut
}
}
claims of bias or disqualification. [
}
Ev.C. \u167\'3f 703.5
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1990) 217 CA3d 518, 528-529, 265 CR 868, 874
}}}
; and see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Betz v. Pankow
}
}
(1993) 16 CA4th 919, 926-927, 20 CR2d 834, 838
}}}
\u8212\'3fdeclarations by female member of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel admissible to support charge of gender bias by male
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, and declarations of male
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
admissible to refute charge]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ac92a804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ac92a804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:518]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Wherever possible, use
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
other witnesses\rquote
}
}
declarations \u8230\'3f not the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
! The
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
post-decision attempt to show no bias may have just the opposite effect! Indeed,
some courts regard such declarations as \u8220\'3funseemly.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 217 CA3d at 529, 265 CR at 874, fn. 7
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1000 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:518.1 - 5:518.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ad056704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ad056704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
2) [5:518.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Admissibility of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
deposition:
}
}
Similarly, an
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fmay not be deposed absent clear evidence of impropriety.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hoeft v. MVL Group, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2003) 343 F3d 57, 66
}}}
(internal quotes omitted)\u8212\'3fimproper questioning to determine
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision-making process]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ad475204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ad475204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:518.7] A party\rquote s attempt to depose a party-appointed
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
and the chairman of the panel on the issue of
}
arbitral
}
}
}
bias was properly denied where there was no clear evidence of improper conduct. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Home Ins. Co.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2002) 278 F3d 621, 628
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rebmann v. Rohde
}
}
(2011) 196 CA4th 1283, 1293-1294, 127 CR3d 510, 518
}}}
(dictum)]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li1200 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:518.8 - 5:518.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ae27ee04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ae27ee04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
3) [5:518.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fremand for clarification:
}
}
A court may remand an ambiguous award in need of clarification. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., KG
}
}
(6th Cir. 2003) 326 F3d 772, 782
}}}
(per curiam)]
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Likewise, remand is proper to require the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to address an unresolved issue that had been previously submitted to the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., KG
}
}
, supra, 326 F3d at 782
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0aeae3504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0aeae3504fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:519]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Incorporation by reference:
}
}
Matters attached to an earlier petition in the same court file (e.g., an earlier
petition to compel
}
arbitration
}
}
}
) may be incorporated by clear and specific reference in the moving papers.
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0aec91004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0aec91004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:520]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Even so, it is better practice to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
attach copies of all necessary papers
}
}
to your current motion. The judge will appreciate not having to search through the
file to locate earlier-filed documents!
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0af320b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0af320b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:521]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Response:
}
}
A response to a petition to correct or vacate should set forth the same
information required in the petition (copy of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
clause and award, names of
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
and grounds on which relief is sought). [
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1285.6
}}}
-
}
1285.8
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0af766704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0af766704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:522]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Notice requirements:
}
}
An award may not be vacated or corrected unless a petition for either form of
relief has been duly served and filed and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all parties are before the court
}
}
. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1286.4
}}}
,
}
1286.8
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Parties
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
before the court must receive reasonable notice that the court will be requested
at the hearing to vacate or correct the award, and an opportunity to show cause why
such relief should not be granted. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1286.4
}}}
,
}
1286.8
}}}
; and
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 12
}}}
\u8212\'3fpetition must be served in same manner as summons]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0aff7cc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0aff7cc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(6) [5:523]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Rehearing:
}
}
If the award is vacated, the court may
}
order
}
}
}
a rehearing before new
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
.
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Alternatively, with the parties\rquote consent, the rehearing may be
}
ordered
}
}
}
before the original
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
(provided the award was not challenged for fraud or misconduct, etc.). [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Any time limit in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement for completing the hearings may be disregarded if the purpose of such
time limit will not be frustrated by the rehearing. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(7) [5:523.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Sanctions for improper petitions to vacate:
}
}
}
CCP \u167\'3f 128.7
}}}
applies to petitions to vacate an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award pursuant to
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1285
}}}
. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286.2(b)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Sanctions for improper petitions to vacate and for frivolous appeals from the
denials of petitions are discussed at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f
}
5:450.3
}}}
,
}
5:455.8
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
Sanctions under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 128.7
}}}
are discussed in detail in Weil & Brown et al.,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 9
}}}
Part III.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b0fa9604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b0fa9604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
f. [5:524]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Appellate review:
}
}
An
}
order
}
}
}
vacating the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award is appealable (unless it requires rehearing in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
). [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1294(c)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b12b6a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b12b6a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:525]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
vacating
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
interim
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
ruling:
}
}
}
On the other hand, an
}
order
}
}
}
vacating an
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
interim
}
}
ruling by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
that does not resolve
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
all
}
}
of the questions to be
}
arbitrated
}
}
}
is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
appealable, because it does not fit the
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1283.4
}}}
definition of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8220\'3faward\u8221\'3f as including \u8220\'3fa determination of all the
questions submitted.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc.
}
}
(2014) 232 CA4th 619, 632-635, 181 CR3d 622, 632-635
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:526]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dismissing
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
petition:
}
}
}
An
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
dismissing
}
}
a petition to vacate or confirm the award is appealable. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1294(b)
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cinel v. Christopher
}
}
(2012) 203 CA4th 759, 764-766, 136 CR3d 763, 767-769
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
denying petition to confirm
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
ruling terminating
}
arbitration
}
}
}
for nonpayment of fees construed as \u8220\'3fdismissal\u8221\'3f and therefore
appealable under
}
\u167\'3f 1294(b)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, a dismissal may be
}
ordered
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
only
}
}
on the ground the respondent is not bound by the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.2
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:526.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
denying
}
}
petition on
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
substantive
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
grounds:
}
}
}
No appeal lies from an
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
denying
}
}
vacation or correction of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award on
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
substantive
}
}
grounds (e.g., \u8220\'3fcorruption, fraud or undue means\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fevident miscalculation or mistake\u8221\'3f). Any error is reviewable
only on appeal from the
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Mid-Wilshire Associates v. O\rquote Leary
}
}
(1992) 7 CA4th 1450, 1454, 9 CR2d 862, 864
}}}
; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cinel v. Christopher
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fdenial\u8221\'3f of petition to confirm construed as
\u8220\'3fdismissal\u8221\'3f and immediately appealable under
}
\u167\'3f 1294(b)
}}}
(distinguishing
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Mid-Wilshire
}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b2d91a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b2d91a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:526.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Standard of review:
}
}
Appeals from a trial court
}
order
}
}
}
granting or denying a request to vacate an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award are reviewed de novo. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1994) 9 C4th 362, 376, 36 CR2d 581, 589, fn. 9
}}}
\u8212\'3fin context of claim
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
exceeded powers, superior court\rquote s decision subject to de novo review;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Haworth v. Sup.Ct. (Ossakow)
}
}
(2010) 50 C4th 372, 383-386, 112 CR3d 853, 861-864
}}}
\u8212\'3fwhether
}
order
}
}
}
vacating award based on neutral
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
failure to disclose matter purportedly \u8220\'3fcreating an appearance of
partiality,\u8221\'3f was mixed question of fact and law subject to de novo review
(facts and rule of law were undisputed and rule provided objective test by focusing
on hypothetical reasonable person\rquote s perception of bias);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
SWAB Fin\rquote l v. E*Trade Secur.
}
}
(2007) 150 CA4th 1181, 1198, 58 CR3d 904, 916-917
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
order
}
}
}
granting or denying request to vacate
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award reviewed de novo]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:526.3 - 5:526.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:526.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fappellate review under FAA:
}
}
An appeal may be taken from any
}
order
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fmodifying, correcting, or vacating an award.\u8221\'3f [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 16(a)(1)(E)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:526.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Application:
}
}
An
}
order
}
}
}
vacating an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award and remanding for further
}
arbitration
}
}
}
has been held immediately appealable. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. v. Hutson
}
}
(1st Cir. 2000) 229 F3d 321, 328
}}}
; compare
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Landy Michaels Realty Corp. v. Local 32B-32J, Service Employees Int\rquote l Union,
AFL-CIO
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1992) 954 F2d 794, 797-798
}}}
\u8212\'3fremand to
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
to clarify calculation of damages
}
}
not immediately appealable]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:526.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Standard of review:
}
}
Federal appellate courts review a district court\rquote s decision confirming or
vacating an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award under the FAA, \u8220\'3flike any other district court decision \u8230\'3f
accepting findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous but deciding questions of
law de novo.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2003) 336 F3d 1128, 1132
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
For further discussion of appellate review of
}
orders
}
}
}
granting or denying requests to vacate
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards in California appellate courts, see Eisenberg, Horvitz & Wiener,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 8; and for further discussion of appellate review under the federal
court of appeals, see Goelz, Watts & Batalden
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
, Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Federal Ninth Circuit Civil Appellate Practice
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 7.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
3. [5:527]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Petition to Confirm Award:
}
}
Until an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is confirmed (or vacated), it has only the effect of a contract in writing
between the parties. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.6
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jones v. Kvistad
}
}
(1971) 19 CA3d 836, 840, 97 CR 100, 103
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The procedure by which the prevailing party obtains an enforceable
}
judgment
}
}
}
is a petition to confirm the award. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
;
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=9USCAS9&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecddb7
9 USC \u167\'3f 9
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Loeb v. Record
}
}
(2008) 162 CA4th 431, 450, 75 CR3d 551, 565
}}}
(citing text)]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Under California law, the rules governing contractual
}
arbitration
}
}
}
apply only when the parties have agreed their dispute shall be submitted to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award shall be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
binding
}
}
}
}
on them. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cheng-Canindin v. Renaissance Hotel Assocs.
}
}
(1996) 50 CA4th 676, 684, 57 CR2d 867, 872
}}}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
; see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:34 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Under
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 9
}}}
, an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is confirmable only if the parties have agreed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
judgment
}
}
}
may be entered
}
}
on the award. But federal courts are split on whether the award must be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
binding
}
}
}
}
and whether the agreement must expressly state that the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
judicially enforceable
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:35.5 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a. [5:527.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fconfirmation of nonbinding MFAA fee
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards:
}
}
A fee award under the Mandatory Fee
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act may be confirmed in the same manner as for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards under
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1285 et seq.
}}}
[
}
Bus. & Prof.C. \u167\'3f 6203(b)
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Perez v. Grajales
}
}
(2008) 169 CA4th 580, 588, 86 CR3d 784, 789
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b59aab04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b59aab04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
b. [5:528]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Confirmation mandatory absent grounds for challenge:
}
}
Unless a petition to correct or vacate the award has been timely filed, the court
must render a
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fthe court shall confirm the award as made \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f;
see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc.
}
}
(1994) 25 CA4th 809, 818, 30 CR2d 785, 790-791
}}}
\u8212\'3fno authority to alter terms of award absent petition to correct;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Weinberg v. Safeco Ins. Co.
}
}
(2004) 114 CA4th 1075, 1083-1084, 8 CR3d 224, 229-230
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b5fc5304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b5fc5304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:528.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of court\rquote s failure to correct or vacate award, or dismiss petition:
}
}
If the trial court does not dismiss the petition to correct or vacate an award and
also does not dismiss the petition, \u8220\'3fit
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
must
}
}
confirm the award.\u8221\'3f [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Law Offices of David S. Karton v. Segreto
}
}
(2009) 176 CA4th 1, 9-10, 97 CR3d 329, 336-337
}}}
(emphasis in original)\u8212\'3f
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
required trial court to confirm initial MFAA award upon denying petition to
correct]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b662dd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b662dd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:529]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Payment no bar to confirmation:
}
}
The losing party cannot prevent entry of
}
judgment
}
}
}
by paying whatever amount has been awarded. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Pacific Law Group: USA v. Gibson
}
}
(1992) 6 CA4th 577, 580, 7 CR2d 878, 879
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fall
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards, including defense awards which have been satisfied, are subject to
confirmation\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:529.1 - 5:529.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b6cbd804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b6cbd804fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:529.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Satisfaction of
}
judgment
}
}
}
:
}
}
But the court can enter satisfaction of
}
judgment
}
}
}
upon proof the award has been paid. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 724.050(d)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, satisfaction cannot be
}
ordered
}
}
}
for payments which
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
may or may not have
}
}
affected the amount of the award. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Schumacher v. Ayerve
}
}
(1992) 9 CA4th 1860, 1865, 12 CR2d 417, 419
}}}
\u8212\'3f$35,000 judicial
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award not subject to $5,000 offset for medical expenses paid outside
}
arbitration
}
}
}
because full award may have been for
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
other items
}
}
of damage]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
c. [5:530]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Awards made outside California:
}
}
Unless corrected or vacated as above, California courts must enforce
}
arbitral
}
}
}
awards \u8220\'3frendered in this state or another state.\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1286
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:531]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Foreign
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
:
}
}
The United States has adopted the \u8220\'3fConvention on Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign
}
Arbitral
}
}
}
Awards.\u8221\'3f Foreign
}
arbitral
}
}
}
awards are enforceable in federal courts in accordance with the Convention. [See
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=9USCAS201&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
9 USC \u167\'3f 201 et seq.
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:575 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Convention has a pro-enforcement bias, and district courts have very little
discretion when reviewing foreign
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ministry of Defense & Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic
Defense Systems, Inc.
}
}
(SD CA 1998) 29 F.Supp.2d 1168, 1171
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
There is no comparable provision for state court enforcement of
}
arbitral
}
}
}
awards made outside the United States.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
d. [5:532]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Time limits:
}
}
Under California law, a petition to confirm an award must be served and filed at
least 10 days, and no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the
petitioner. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1288
}}}
,
}
1288.4
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Compare FAA:
}
}
FAA
}
\u167\'3f 9
}}}
provides that a party \u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
may
}
}
\u8221\'3f seek confirmation of an award within
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
1 year
}
}
after the award is made. [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 9
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Caution\u8212\'3fmandatory or permissive time limit?
}
}
There is a split of authority whether the time limit in FAA
}
\u167\'3f 9
}}}
is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
permissive
}
}
, thus allowing judicial confirmation of an award even after the 1-year period, or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
mandatory
}
}
. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Photopaint Technologies, LLC v. Smartlens Corp.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2003) 335 F3d 152, 158
}}}
(mandatory)\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fmay\u8221\'3f means 1-year time period within which
party may seek confirmation;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Sverdrup Corp. v. WHC Constructors, Inc.
}
}
(4th Cir. 1993) 989 F2d 148, 151-156
}}}
(permissive)\u8212\'3frelying on ordinary meaning of \u8220\'3fmay\u8221\'3f and
judicial economy considerations;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Val-U Const. Co. of S.D. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe
}
}
(8th Cir. 1998) 146 F3d 573, 581
}}}
(permissive)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b8db3004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b8db3004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:533]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Waiting until after the time within which the losing party may move to vacate or
correct the award (100 days under state law, 90 days under federal law;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:506
}}}
}
) may insulate the award from challenge. But this strategy has its disadvantages;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:537
}}}
}
.
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
e. [5:534]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Procedural matters:
}
}
A petition to confirm is subject to jurisdiction, venue and procedural
requirements similar to a motion to vacate or correct the award (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:513 ff.
}}}
}
).
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0b974ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0b974ff04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:535]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Personal jurisdiction:
}
}
Anyone agreeing in California to
}
arbitrate
}
}
}
a dispute here is subject to the personal jurisdiction of California courts in
proceedings to confirm the award. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1293
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Reisman v. Shahverdian
}
}
(1984) 153 CA3d 1074, 1086, 201 CR 194, 199
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:535.1 - 5:535.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ba30fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ba30fc04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:535.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Venue:
}
}
Under California law, a petition to confirm an award must be filed in the county
where the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was held. If the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was not held exclusively in a county or was held out of state, proper venue is
either the county where the underlying agreement was made or was to be performed;
or, if the agreement was made outside California and no county in California is
specified for performance, the county where any party resides or has a place of
business; or otherwise, in any county within
}
California. [CCP \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1292
}}}
,
}
1292.2
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ba61d004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ba61d004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:535.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3ffederal venue:
}
}
Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, venue for a petition to confirm an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award lies in the district where the award was made. [See
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 9
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ba8dc204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ba8dc204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
1) [5:535.6a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Permissive only:
}
}
However, this provision is permissive, not mandatory. Thus, unless the
parties\rquote agreement specifies the court in which such application may be
made, a petition to confirm may also be filed in any district proper under general
venue rules (e.g., where defendant resides, even if the award was made in another
state).
}
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Const. Co
}
}
. (2000) 529 US 193, 195, 120 S.Ct. 1331, 1334
}}}
] (The same rule applies for a petition to vacate or correct an award;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:514.1
}}}
.
}
}
)
\par
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
For a discussion of venue to vacate or correct an award,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:514 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FORMS
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\pntext }
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
PETITION TO CONFIRM, CORRECT, OR VACATE CONTRACTUAL
}
ARBITRATION
}
}
}
AWARD,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRForm118.1&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85
ecddb7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
Form 118.1
}}}
}
(Judicial Council optional form).
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD OF
}
ARBITRATORS
}
}
}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
Form 119
}}}
.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bba8f604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bba8f604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
f. [5:536]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Opposing motions; deadlines:
}
}
In response to a petition to confirm the award, the responding party may request
that the award be vacated or corrected \u8230\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
provided
}
}
such request is served and filed
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
within 100 days
}
}
after the award was served on such party. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1288.2
}}}
]
{\pntext }
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
FORM:
}
}
}
RESPONSE TO PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD OF
}
ARBITRATORS
}
}
}
,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
Form 120
}}}
.
\par {\pntext }
}
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Similarly, under federal law, any challenge to confirmation must be made within
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
three months
}
}
after the award is served or filed (
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 12
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:506
}}}
}
).
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bc2f3d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bc2f3d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:536.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you are the prevailing party in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, it may be to your advantage not to rush to confirm the award. By waiting until
after the 100- or 90-day deadline (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:533
}}}
}
), you may insulate the award from challenge.
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, there are some downsides to waiting. If you do not confirm the
award before the losing party files its petition to vacate or correct, you risk
surrendering choice of venue to the other side. This may result in a less objective
review of the award\u8212\'3fe.g., if the losing party files in a court where his
or her counsel is extremely well known and you are not.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Also, by waiting to confirm the award, you risk placing yourself in a defensive
posture. The proceedings may be characterized exclusively as the losing
party\rquote s petition to vacate or correct, notwithstanding your prompt filing of
a cross-petition to confirm. And, if the court permits the proceeding to be treated
as a standard law and motion matter, the losing party may be able to file a second
and final \u8220\'3freply\u8221\'3f brief to your cross-petition\u8212\'3fthus
getting \u8220\'3ftwo bites at the apple\u8221\'3f to your \u8220\'3fone.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bd25d204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bd25d204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
g. [5:537]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Statement of decision:
}
}
When ruling on a petition to confirm an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award, a statement of decision explaining the superior court\rquote s decision on
the principal controverted issues is not required unless timely requested by one of
the parties. [See
}
CCP \u167\'3f 632
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Agri-Systems, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms
}
}
(2008) 168 CA4th 1128, 1135, 85 CR3d 917, 922
}}}
; see also
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Metis Develop.
}
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
LLC v. Bohacek
}
}
(2011) 200 CA4th 679, 689, 131 CR3d 585, 592, fn. 5
}}}
(dictum)\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Agri-Systems
}
}
and other cases \u8220\'3fdo not expressly hold, but perhaps imply, that a
statement of decision would have been required if requested\u8221\'3f]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bd8c5c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bd8c5c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:537.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of failure to request statement of decision:
}
}
Absent a timely request, the appellate court will
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
imply
}
}
the superior court made
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
whatever findings are necessary
}
}
to support the
}
judgment
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Agri-Systems, Inc. v. Foster Poultry Farms
}
}
}}}
\u8212\'3fsuperior court did not commit reversible error by not providing more
detailed rationale for
}
order
}
}
}
confirming award]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bde92204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bde92204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
h. [5:538]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Judgment
}
}
}
:
}
}
If the award is confirmed, the
}
judgment
}
}
}
entered has the same force as any other civil
}
judgment
}
}
}
and may be enforced accordingly. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.4
}}}
; see
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 13
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Systems, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2000) 207 F3d 1126, 1133-1134
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0be2b0d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0be2b0d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:539]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Costs:
}
}
Costs incurred in judicial proceedings to enforce an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award (petition to compel, etc.) are recoverable by the prevailing party as a
matter of right. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1293.2
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Austin v. Allstate Ins. Co.
}
}
(1993) 16 CA4th 1812, 1815-1816, 21 CR2d 56, 57-58
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway
}
}
(2008) 158 CA4th 796, 805-808, 70 CR3d 434, 440-443
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
discussed at
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:335.4
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0be919704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0be919704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:539.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding costs:
}
}
A court may
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
award costs in the judicial proceeding that should have been awarded, if at all,
in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Corona v. Amherst Partners
}
}
(2003) 107 CA4th 701, 706, 132 CR2d 250, 253-254
}}}
\u8212\'3fcourt declined to award
}
arbitration
}
}
}
fees and costs that arguably could have been awarded in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
if requested]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
Recovery of costs incurred in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding is discussed at
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:402 ff.
}}}
,
}
5:434 ff.
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bf1a4f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bf1a4f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:540]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Interest:
}
}
Under federal law in diversity cases, postaward prejudgment interest may be
awarded by the court as part of the confirmation process and is determined in
accordance with state law. Postjudgment interest is governed by federal law
pursuant to
}
28 USC \u167\'3f 1961
}}}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd\rquote s of London
}
}
(9th Cir. 2013) 725 F3d 1050, 1055-1056
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0bf723304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0bf723304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:540.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Amending
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor\rquote s alter ego:
}
}
A
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award, like all
}
judgments
}
}
}
, may be amended by the court to add a supplementary
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor as the alter ego of the original
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hall, Goodhue, Haisley & Barker, Inc. v. Marconi Conference Ctr. Bd.
}
}
(1996) 41 CA4th 1551, 1555, 49 CR2d 286, 288-289
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Greenspan v. LADT, LLC
}
}
(2010) 191 CA4th 486, 495-496, 508, 121 CR3d 118, 125, 134-135
}}}
\u8212\'3fnot always inequitable to add as additional
}
judgment
}
}
}
debtor party who was named and prevailed in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
as alter ego of parties against whom award was entered (proper to do so in this
case);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc.
}
}
(2013) 217 CA4th 1096, 1106-1110, 159 CR3d 469, 479-482
}}}
(accord);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
and
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:286.11 ff.
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c00e7304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c00e7304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:540.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Amending
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add undisputed sum that was part of award:
}
}
A court has authority under
}
FRCP 60(a)
}}}
to amend a
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award or issue a supplemental
}
judgment
}
}
}
to add an undisputed sum that was part of the award but inadvertently omitted from
the
}
judgment
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Robert Lewis Rosen Assocs., Ltd. v. Webb
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2007) 473 F3d 498, 499-500
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cross-refer:
}
}
For further discussion of
}
FRCP 60(a)
}}}
, see
}
findType=Y&pubNum=0130702&cite=FEDCIVEVCH.20&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85
ecddb7f2f8&refType=TS&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=
Jones, Rosen, Wegner & Jones,
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rutter Group Prac. Guide: Federal Civil Trials & Evidence
}
}
(TRG), Ch. 20
}}}
.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:540.3 - 5:540.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c0972b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c0972b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:540.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Judgment
}
}
}
confirming appraisal award:
}
}
If an appraisal award is confirmed, the court must enter
}
judgment
}
}
}
in accordance therewith. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.4
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Devonwood Condominium Owners Ass\rquote n v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
}
}
(2008) 162 CA4th 1498, 1505-1506, 77 CR3d 88, 93
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But the
}
judgment
}
}
}
entered on the award may be no broader than the appraisal/award itself. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Devonwood Condominium Owners Ass\rquote n v. Farmers Ins. Exch
}
}
., supra, 162 CA4th at 1506, 77 CR3d at 93-94
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c0ea2d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c0ea2d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:540.7] Homeowners Association and Insurer enter into an appraisal
process to determine the replacement cost for fire damage. Insurer did not concede
that an item covered in the appraisal (painting interior areas) was within the
coverage of the policy. Appraisers issued an award consistent with the limitations
in the policy that the award determines replacement cost values without deciding
liability issues. It was not the appraisers\rquote function to determine coverage
issues and interpret policy provisions. The trial court properly confirmed the
award. But the court erred by entering
}
judgment
}
}
}
for Insured holding Insurer liable for the amount of the award.
}
The court\rquote s authority was limited to the issuance of a
}
judgment
}
}
}
that resolved the dollar amount of replacement cost values. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Devonwood Condominium Owners Ass\rquote n v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
}
}
}}}
(
}
judgment
}
}
}
vacated)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c15cec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c15cec04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
i. [5:541]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Appellate review:
}
}
The
}
judgment
}
}
}
entered on the award is appealable. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1294(d)
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
An
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
denying
}
}
a petition to confirm the award has the same effect as an
}
order
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacating
}
}
the award and is appealable as such. [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1294(c)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ray Wilson Co. v. Anaheim Mem. Hosp. Ass\rquote n
}
}
(1985) 166 CA3d 1081, 1085, 213 CR 62, 64, fn. 1
}}}
(disapproved on other grounds in
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1992) 3 C4th 1, 27-28, 10 CR2d 183, 199-200
}}}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c1d96f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c1d96f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:541.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Finality requirement:
}
}
An appeal from a
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is subject to a finality requirement. Thus, if other issues remain
unresolved in the trial court, the
}
judgment
}
}
}
confirming the award is not final and the appeal must be dismissed. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rubin v. Western Mut. Ins. Co.
}
}
(1999) 71 CA4th 1539, 1547-1548, 84 CR2d 648, 653-654
}}}
\u8212\'3faward only appraised amount of earthquake damage with merits of case
awaiting trial; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Judge v. Nijjar Realty, Inc.
}
}
(2014) 232 CA4th 619, 632-635, 181 CR3d 622, 632-635
}}}
\u8212\'3fpartial final award determining clause construction did not constitute
\u8220\'3faward\u8221\'3f under CAA and hence trial court\rquote s
}
order
}
}
}
vacating it not appealable; see discussion of AAA/JAMS class action review
procedures at
}
\u182\'3f5:362.6 ff.
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:541.2 - 5:541.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c23ff904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c23ff904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:541.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fappellate review under FAA:
}
}
An appeal may be taken from any
}
order
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fconfirming or denying confirmation of an award or partial award
\u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f [
}
9 USC \u167\'3f 16(a)(1)(D)
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Bull HN Information Systems, Inc. v. Hutson
}
}
(1st Cir. 2000) 229 F3d 321, 327
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:541.6 - 5:541.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I5e6408f0638211e49988e100be0fe}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I5e6408f0638211e49988e100be0fe}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:541.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Standard of review:
}
}
Appeals from trial court rulings and the underlying
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award are subject to different standards of review. Appellate courts will affirm
the trial court\rquote s findings of fact in confirming an award if they are
supported by substantial evidence. Reviewing courts will apply a de novo standard
to the trial court\rquote s determinations of questions of law on undisputed facts.
[
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2014) 230 CA4th 1, 11-12, 178 CR3d 322, 330
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Appellate courts \u8220\'3fapply a highly deferential standard of review to the
award itself\u8221\'3f concerning the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
determinations of issues of fact or law and will not review an
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
decision for errors of law or fact. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c2cd9304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c2cd9304fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
4. [5:542]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Award:
}
}
Unless vacated or corrected by the court, a private
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is normally entitled to res judicata effect and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
limited
}
}
collateral estoppel effect (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:546 ff.
}}}
}
), thus barring relitigation of identical claims resolved in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Vandenberg v. Sup.Ct. (Centennial Ins. Co.)
}
}
(1999) 21 C4th 815, 824, 88 CR2d 366, 371, fn. 2
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gordon v. G.R.O.U.P., Inc.
}
}
(1996) 49 CA4th 998, 1010, 56 CR2d 914, 922
}}}
(citing text); and
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Baxter Int\rquote l, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
}
}
(7th Cir. 2003) 315 F3d 829, 831
}}}
\u8212\'3faward determining worldwide license for product was lawful barred
relitigation of licensor\rquote s claim license violated Sherman Act]
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c33de104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c33de104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a. [5:543]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Res judicata:
}
}
An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award bars relitigation of the matters heard or
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
that could have been heard
}
}
in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Thibodeau v. Crum
}
}
(1992) 4 CA4th 749, 755, 6 CR2d 27, 29
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trollope v. Jeffries
}
}
(1976) 55 CA3d 816, 823, 128 CR 115, 120
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Lewis v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
}
}
(10th Cir. 2007) 500 F3d 1140, 1147
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The award is
}
binding
}
}
}
on the parties, as well as nonparties who are in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
privity
}
}
with such parties (e.g., insurance companies, indemnitors, successors in interest,
assignees, etc.).
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
A nonparty with
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
derivative
}
}
liability to a party exonerated in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
may assert claim preclusion as a defense in later litigation. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc.
}
}
(1999) 76 CA4th 550, 557-558, 90 CR2d 469, 473-474
}}}
\u8212\'3finvestor losing claims against broker in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
barred from suing financial services company of which broker was an officer;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi
}
}
(2005) 131 CA4th 566, 575-579, 32 CR3d 244, 250-254
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3fprior
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award in favor of defendant\rquote s alleged coconspirators barred any claim
grounded on aiding and abetting or conspiracy theory]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:543.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
MAKE A RECORD!
}
}
:
}
}
Res judicata applies only where it is possible to determine what claims were
actually litigated. It is your job to make a record if you want the award to bar
further litigation (or conversely, if you want to limit its preclusive effect).
Here are some things to do:
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Make your
}
arbitration
}
}
}
demand (or response) as detailed as possible;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Ask for a conference with the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
before
}
}
the hearing to determine the particular claims and issues being submitted for
decision and for a stipulation or
}
order
}
}
}
on these matters;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Have a reporter present (if cost-justified);
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
Ask the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
make findings
}
}
even if he or she is not obligated to do so (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:419
}}}
}
).
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:544]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Includes claims that could have been raised:
}
}
\u8220\'3fRes judicata bars all grounds for recovery which could have been
asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties on the
same cause of action.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 1992) 966 F2d 1318, 1320
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Whether a cause of action could have been asserted in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
is based on whether:
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
substantially the same evidence is involved in both proceedings;
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
the same \u8220\'3ftransactional nucleus of facts\u8221\'3f is involved in both
proceedings; and
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\pntext }
{\li1400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf25 \i0
}
rights or interests established by the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award would be impaired by renewed litigation. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 966 F2d at 1320
}}}
]
\par {\pntext }
}
}
{\li1200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:545]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Award need not be confirmed:
}
}
It is not necessary that a
}
judgment
}
}
}
have been entered confirming the award. An unconfirmed
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award \u8220\'3fhas the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the
parties.\u8221\'3f [
}
CCP \u167\'3f 1287.6
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Richard B. LeVine, Inc. v. Higashi
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
It is sufficient that the matter has been (or could have been) adjudicated by the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
tribunal that the parties had agreed would be the tribunal of last resort for
their controversy. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Thibodeau v. Crum
}
}
}}}
; see
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. OneBeacon American Ins. Co.
}
}
(1st Cir. 2014) 744 F3d 25, 28
}}}
\u8212\'3funder FAA, preclusive effect of prior
}
arbitration
}
}
}
is matter for
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to decide]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On the other hand, federal courts sitting in diversity, do not give res judicata
effect to an unappealed
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award where the claims sought to be precluded were not subject to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
W.J. O\rquote Neil Co. v. Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson & Abbott, Inc.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2014) 765 F3d 625, 629-633
}}}
(but not deciding whether federal or state law applied to decide preclusive effect
of unreviewed
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award because Michigan preclusion law was similar to federal counterpart)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:545.1 - 5:545.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c5a03b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c5a03b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:545.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Decided by
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
:
}
}
An issue of res judicata raised in a second
}
arbitration
}
}
}
between the same parties is determined by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
, not the court. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT & T Corp.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2002) 298 F3d 756, 763-764
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Shell Oil Co. v. CO2 Committee, Inc.
}
}
(10th Cir. 2009) 589 F3d 1105, 1109-1110
}}}
(also determining that new
}
arbitration
}
}
}
panel should decide whether second proceeding was barred by res judicata);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:229.8
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c61f2f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c61f2f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
b. [5:546]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Collateral estoppel:
}
}
Issues
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
actually determined
}
}
in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
proceeding, and
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
necessary
}
}
to such determination, are entitled to collateral estoppel effect in later
litigation between the same parties. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Gordon v. G.R.O.U.P., Inc.
}
}
(1996) 49 CA4th 998, 1010, 56 CR2d 914, 922
}}}
(citing text);
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Penn. v. Belco Petroleum Corp.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 1996) 88 F3d 129, 135-136
}}}
; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kelly v. Vons Cos., Inc.
}
}
(1998) 67 CA4th 1329, 1339, 79 CR2d 763, 769
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Again, this is true whether or not a
}
judgment
}
}
}
has been entered confirming the award (see above).
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c685b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c685b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:546.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
No collateral estoppel effect as to third parties:
}
}
Unless the parties agree otherwise, a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
private
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award, even if judicially confirmed, is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
entitled to collateral estoppel effect
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
in favor of a nonparty to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
}
. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1999) 21 C4th 815, 834-837, 88 CR2d 366, 378-381
}}}
\u8212\'3f\u8220\'3fnonmutual\u8221\'3f use of confirmed award not warranted under
California
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act; see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Jacobs v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc.
}
}
(9th Cir. 2002) 291 F3d 1173, 1179
}}}
\u8212\'3fWriters Guild
}
arbitration
}
}
}
too informal to have preclusive effect]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c6e27f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c6e27f04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:546.1a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjoinder of third parties in
}
arbitration
}
}
}
:
}
}
Third parties may be entitled to the collateral estoppel effect of an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award in later litigation if they are joined in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and successfully participate (e.g., asserting and obtaining an award that they are
not responsible under the contract). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Grinham v. Fielder
}
}
(2002) 99 CA4th 1049, 1051, 1054, 121 CR2d 468, 469, 471-472
}}}
(distinguishing
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Vandenberg,
}
}
supra)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(b) [5:546.1b]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
prior ruling denying disqualification of counsel:
}
}
An
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
ruling concerning disqualification of counsel is collateral to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and not entitled to collateral estoppel effect in later litigation between the
same parties. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
}
}
(2002) 96 CA4th 96, 108-115, 116 CR2d 644, 654-660
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c7776c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c7776c04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_106764_5:546_1c_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_106764_5:546_1c_1}
}
\u8226\'3f [5:546.1c] In an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
involving licensing agreements, Licensee unsuccessfully moved to disqualify
opposing party\rquote s counsel because counsel had previously represented
Licensee. Licensee sued opposing counsel for breach of loyalty. Opposing counsel
was not entitled to
}
summary
}
}
}
}
judgment
}
}
}
based on the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
ruling on the motion to disqualify.The ruling was not res judicata, because
counsel was a nonparty to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
and the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
ruling was on an ancillary issue. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Benasra v. Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c7ea2b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c7ea2b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:546.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of adverse
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award on employee\rquote s subsequent lawsuit involving statutory claims:
}
}
A labor
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award rejecting an employee\rquote s
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
statutory
}
}
claims against the employer can have collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) effect
in the employee\rquote s subsequent lawsuit only if the CBA
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement contained a \u8220\'3fclear and unmistakable\u8221\'3f waiver of the
employee\rquote s right to sue on the statutory claims. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Camargo v. California Portland Cement Co.
}
}
(2001) 86 CA4th 995, 1018-1019, 103 CR2d 841, 855-856
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Taylor v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
}
}
(2003) 113 CA4th 380, 385-387, 6 CR3d 358, 361-362
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marcario v. County of Orange
}
}
(2007) 155 CA4th 397, 404, 65 CR3d 903, 908
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c85f5b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c85f5b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:546.3] CBA provided for resolution of \u8220\'3fany
dispute.\u8221\'3f Union Employee submitted her sexual discrimination and sexual
harassment claims to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
.
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
ruled in favor of Employer, and the award was confirmed. Employee then sued
Employer for sexual discrimination and harassment under the FEHA. Since the CBA did
not provide for
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of FEHA claims, the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award did not have collateral estoppel effect on Employee\rquote s subsequent
lawsuit. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:546.3a] Employee filed two suits against Employer. Employee contended
that his demotion as head football coach and later termination was discriminatory
under the FEHA. Employee asserted related common law claims. Employer moved for
dismissal in one suit and demurred in the other, contending that Employee failed to
exhaust the CBA\rquote s internal grievance procedures.The trial court erroneously
dismissed the two suits. The internal procedures were not labeled as \u8220\'3f
}
arbitration
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f but contained all the hallmarks of
}
arbitration
}
}
}
. The CBA did not include a \u8220\'3fclear and unmistakable\u8221\'3f waiver of
the judicial forum, nor did it include procedures allowing \u8220\'3ffor full
litigation and fair adjudication of the FEHA claim.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Ortega v. Contra Costa Comm. College Dist.
}
}
(2007) 156 CA4th 1073, 1084-1086, 67 CR3d 832, 840-842
}}}
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c90cb204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c90cb204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:546.3b] Employee filed a grievance under the CBA, and
}
Arbitrator
}
}
}
issued an award in favor of Employer. Later, Employee sued Employer alleging he
was terminated in violation of the public policy against racial discrimination and
retaliation, as codified in the FEHA. The trial court properly granted
}
summary
}
}
}
}
judgment
}
}
}
. The appellate court rejected Employee\rquote s contention that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Camargo,
}
}
supra
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
,
}
}
should be applied to these common law claims related to the FEHA and concluded the
grievance decided issues raised in the civil action. Therefore, res judicata
applied to bar the claims. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wade v. Ports America Mgmt. Corp.
}
}
(2013) 218 CA4th 648, 650-653, 656-660, 160 CR3d 482, 483-486, 489-491
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c97d0004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c97d0004fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:546.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3feffect of prior labor
}
arbitration
}
}
}
decisions on subsequent
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
?
}
}
Most courts hold that labor
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
are not bound by the decisions of prior
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
, unless the CBA so stipulates. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
International Union v. Dana Corp.
}
}
(6th Cir. 2002) 278 F3d 548, 557
}}}
(collecting cases)\u8212\'3fabsent contrary CBA provision, preclusive effect of
earlier award determined by
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, some cases are contra. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Trailways Lines, Inc. v. Trailways, Inc. Joint Council
}
}
(8th Cir. 1986) 807 F2d 1416, 1425
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0c9e38a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0c9e38a04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(4) [5:547]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of nonreasoned award:
}
}
Collateral estoppel can be invoked only if the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
precise issue
}
}
was presented to and necessarily decided by the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
.
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This may be difficult or impossible to establish with
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nonreasoned awards
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:419
}}}
}
). [See
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Postlewaite v. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
}
}
(2nd Cir. 2003) 333 F3d 42, 49-50
}}}
\u8212\'3fno collateral estoppel for nonreasoned award denying author\rquote s
royalty claims (finding of waiver, rather than interpretation of publishing
agreement, was possibility)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, \u8220\'3fwhere the issue for which preclusion is sought is
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
the only rational one the factfinder could have found
}
}
, then that issue is considered foreclosed, even if no explicit finding of that
issue has been made.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(9th Cir. 1992) 966 F2d 1318, 1321
}}}
(emphasis added)]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The burden is on the party asserting preclusion to establish \u8220\'3fwith clarity
and certainty\u8221\'3f what issues were determined by the
}
arbitrator\rquote s
}
}
}
award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 966 F2d at 1321
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ca7d5904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ca7d5904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:548]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
Avoid this uncertainty. To assure res judicata and collateral estoppel effect, put
a provision in the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
agreement
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
requiring
}
}
the
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
to provide findings of fact and a statement of reasons. (
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
See
}
findType=Y&pubNum=106764&cite=CAADRForm51&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
db7f2f8&refType=DA&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
Form 51
}}}
}
.)
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cadf0104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cadf0104fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(5) [5:549]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Effect of settlement:
}
}
An
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award may be collateral estoppel in subsequent litigation even if the
}
arbitrated
}
}
}
matter has been settled in the interim \u8230\'3f unless the settlement expressly
provided for
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
vacating
}
}
the award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wellons, Inc. v. T.E. Ibberson Co.
}
}
(8th Cir. 1989) 869 F2d 1166, 1169
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cb14b704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cb14b704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u10154\'3f [5:550]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
PRACTICE POINTER
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
:
}
}
}
If you want to avoid collateral estoppel when you settle a dispute after an award
has been made, be sure to stipulate that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
the award be set aside
}
}
and that no
}
judgment
}
}
}
be entered on the award.
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cb67b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cb67b904fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(6) [5:550.1]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3funinsured motorist
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
:
}
}
Findings in an uninsured motorist
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a387.1n&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:387.1n" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:387.1n
}}}
}
) for or against the uninsured motorist have no collateral estoppel effect in a
subsequent tort action by the insured against the uninsured motorist. [See
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000214&cite=CAINS11580.2&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
Ins.C. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 11580.2(f)
}}}
,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000214&cite=CAINS11580.5&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85e
11580.5
}}}
; see also
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(1999) 21 C4th 815, 824, 88 CR2d 366, 371, fn. 2
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cbd59604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cbd59604fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(7) [5:550.2]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3flabor union
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
:
}
}
A union
}
arbitration
}
}
}
to enforce a collective bargaining agreement has been held to be preclusive
against union members asserting similar issues in a subsequent suit against the
employer. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Kelly v. Vons Cos., Inc.
}
}
(1998) 67 CA4th 1329, 1339-1341, 79 CR2d 763, 769-770
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cc0dbd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cc0dbd04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:550.3]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation\u8212\'3fstatutory discrimination claims:
}
}
This rule has no application where the provisions of the CBA requiring
}
arbitration
}
}
}
of employment disputes do not clearly and explicitly include statutory
discrimination claims (e.g., FEHA and Title VII claims). Absent such clear
language, a court will not give res judicata or collateral estoppel effect to an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(2001) 86 CA4th 995, 1018-1019, 103 CR2d 841, 855-856
}}}
, applying
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp.
}
}
(1998) 525 US 70, 79-80, 119 S.Ct. 391, 396
}}}
;
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Marcario v. County of Orange
}
}
(2007) 155 CA4th 397, 404, 65 CR3d 903, 908
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
764_5%3a245.1n&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Documen
tItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_106764_5:245.1n" }{\fldrslt
\u182\'3f5:245.1n
}}}
}
]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:550.4]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ccdd4204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ccdd4204fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
c. [5:550.5]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Limitation in federal cases:
}
}
Federal courts generally give preclusive effect to
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v. Lemos
}
}
(9th Cir. 1987) 832 F2d 1097, 1100
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, federal courts may refuse both res judicata and collateral estoppel where
necessary to protect
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
federal interests.
}
}
[See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd
}
}
(1985) 470 US 213, 223, 105 S.Ct. 1238, 1243
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cd304404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cd304404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:550.6]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Bankruptcy issues:
}
}
Bankruptcy courts may refuse to recognize
}
arbitration
}
}
}
awards when necessary to preserve nonarbitrable bankruptcy issues for resolution
by the bankruptcy court. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hays & Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
}
}
(3rd Cir. 1989) 885 F2d 1149, 1158-1159
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
But a confirmed
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award may serve as a basis for the grant of
}
summary
}
}
}
}
judgment
}
}
}
in a bankruptcy proceeding testing dischargeability of the
}
judgment
}
}
}
on the award under
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=11USCAS523&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecd
11 USC \u167\'3f 523(a)(6)
}}}
(discharge exception for willful and malicious injury). [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
In re Khaligh
}
}
(9th Cir. BAP 2006) 338 BR 817, 821-822, 830-831
}}}
, aff\rquote d (9th Cir. 2007)
}
{\fldrslt
50 F3d 956, 957 (applying Calif. law)
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitrator
}
}
}
found that debtor made defamatory statements about creditor with intent to harm]
\par
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cdb68b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cdb68b04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(2) [5:550.7]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Civil rights violations (
}
42 USC \u167\'3f 1983
}}}
):
}
}
And, courts adjudicating federal civil rights claims under
}
42 USC \u167\'3f 1983
}}}
may refuse to give preclusive effect to a prior
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award involving similar issues. Rationale: Congress intended
}
\u167\'3f 1983
}}}
claims to be judicially enforceable;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
arbitration
}
}
}
is not an adequate substitute
}
}
for adjudicating federal civil rights claims. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brosterhous v. State Bar of Calif
}
}
. (1996) 12 C4th 315, 326-327, 48 CR2d 87, 93-94
}}}
\u8212\'3f
}
arbitral
}
}
}
decision concerning amount of State Bar membership dues to be used for political
activities was not entitled to preclusive effect in federal civil rights action
seeking injunction and damages for violation of members\rquote First Amendment
rights]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ce21f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ce21f704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(3) [5:550.8]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Collateral estoppel effect in favor of nonparties under FAA?
}
}
It is unsettled whether California\rquote s rule barring collateral estoppel
effect in favor of a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
nonparty
}
}
to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:546.1
}}}
}
) applies when the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
is governed by the Federal
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Act (
}
9 USC \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1
}}}
-
}
14
}}}
). [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0ce68c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0ce68c404fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(a) [5:550.8a]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Comment:
}
}
Once an
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award is confirmed by a California state court
}
judgment
}
}
}
, it should be
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
immaterial
}
}
whether the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
was governed by the CAA or the FAA. The
}
judgment\rquote s
}
}
}
effect is determined by California law; i.e., no collateral estoppel effect in
favor of nonparties. It is irrelevant whether the later proceeding is in state or
federal court.
\par
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
However, when the award is confirmed by a federal court, federal law governs the
effect of that
}
judgment
}
}
}
in a later state or federal case. [See
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Rudell v. Comprehensive Accounting Corp.
}
}
(7th Cir. 1986) 802 F2d 926, 928
}}}
; see
}
cddb7f2f8&refType=TS&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
Rest.2d
}
Judgments
}
}
}
\u167\'3f 87
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li1000 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Thus, if the confirmation
}
judgment
}
}
}
is rendered by a federal court, whether based on the CAA or the FAA, federal
preclusion principles will apply to determine the preclusive effect of the
}
judgment
}
}
}
.
\par
}
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li800 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li800 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:550.9]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cf0c5704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cf0c5704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
d. [5:550.10]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3f
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cumis
}
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
counsel fee
}
arbitrations
}
}
}
:
}
}
}
Where a conflict of interest exists between a liability insurer and its insured,
the insurer may be required to pay for independent (\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cumis
}
}
\u8221\'3f) counsel for the insured. Fee disputes between the insurer and
\u8220\'3f
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Cumis
}
}
counsel\u8221\'3f are subject to
}
binding
}
}
}
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000200&cite=CACIS2860&originatingDoc=I95d70decc26211e49d0c85ecdd
Civ.C. \u167\'3f 2860
}}}
). But, unless the parties agree otherwise, the fee award does
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
not
}
}
have preclusive effect on the issues or claims involved in subsequent coverage
litigation between the insurer and insured. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Truck Ins. Exch. v. Sup.Ct. (Cherng)
}
}
(1996) 51 CA4th 985, 997, 59 CR2d 529, 536
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cf818704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cf818704fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
e. [5:550.11]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fno malicious prosecution based on
}
arbitration
}
}
}
award:
}
}
Because the essential nature of private contractual
}
arbitration
}
}
}
differs from litigation, a favorable determination will not support a malicious
prosecution action. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brennan v.Tremco Inc.
}
}
(2001) 25 C4th 310, 314, 105 CR2d 790, 792
}}}
]
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0cfb73d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0cfb73d04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
(1) [5:550.12]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Compare\u8212\'3fjudicial
}
arbitration
}
}
}
:
}
}
The rule is different for judicial
}
arbitration
}
}
}
(see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Stanley v. Sup.Ct. (Snowfall Corp.)
}
}
(1982) 130 CA3d 460, 465, 181 CR 878, 881
}}}
) and administrative proceedings (see
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Hardy v. Vial
}
}
(1957) 48 C2d 577, 581, 311 P2d 494, 496
}}}
); these will support a malicious prosecution action. But contractual
}
arbitration
}
}
}
provides a speedy and inexpensive
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
alternative
}
}
to litigation, which is exempt from a malicious prosecution claim. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
Brennan v. Tremco Inc.
}
}
, supra, 25 C4th at 316-317, 105 CR2d at 794-795
}}}
]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
[5:550.13 - 5:550.19]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Reserved.
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
5. [5:550.20]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel Effect of Prior Court
}
Judgment
}
}
}
in
}
Arbitration
}
}
}
Proceeding:
}
}
\u8220\'3f
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
are not free to ignore the preclusive effect of prior
}
judgments
}
}
}
under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel \u8230\'3f\u8221\'3f
On the other hand,
}
arbitrators
}
}
}
\u8220\'3fgenerally are entitled to determine in the first instance whether to
give the prior judicial determination preclusive effect.\u8221\'3f [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
(9th Cir. 2007) 505 F3d 874, 880
}}}
\par
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_anchor_I0d0a40e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}{\*\bkmkend
co_anchor_I0d0a40e04fdd11e4bcbf9a5247297}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
a. [5:550.21]
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel:
}
}
\u8220\'3fOffensive non-mutual collateral estoppel \u8230\'3f arises when a
plaintiff seeks to estop a defendant from relitigating an issue which the defendant
previously litigated and lost against another plaintiff.\u8221\'3f
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
have the same broad discretion as district courts to decide whether to apply the
doctrine. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 505 F3d at 880-882
}}}
\par
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
}
\u8226\'3f [5:550.22] Former Employees sought to enforce Employer\rquote s promise
to grant shares of stock. During
}
arbitration
}
}
}
, Employees moved for \u8220\'3f
}
summary
}
}
}
}
judgment
}
}
}
\u8221\'3f on that claim. The motion was based on a court
}
judgment
}
}
}
that nonparties to the
}
arbitration
}
}
}
obtained against Employer. In the prior lawsuit, a jury found that Employer
defrauded other employees in making the promise.
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
rejected the collateral application of the prior
}
judgment
}
}
}
to support the motion.
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
have broad discretion in deciding whether to apply offensive nonmutual collateral
estoppel. Although
}
Arbitrators
}
}
}
\rquote determination was erroneous, the reviewing court refused to find that the
determination constituted manifest disregard of the law. [
}
{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i1
}
}
, supra, 505 F3d at 877-878, 882, 884
}}}
(
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
see
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
\u182\'3f5:459
}}}
}
)]
\par
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u169\'3f 2015 by The Rutter Group, a Thomson Reuters Business. No Claim to Orig.
U.S. Govt. Works.
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf24 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf24 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf24 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf24 \i0 \intbl \cell
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf24 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2016 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf24 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
}\sect }

JChallenging and Enforcing Arbitrators Award in Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JChallenging and Enforcing Arbitrators Award in Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

{\rtf1 \ansi

You might also like